There are two other egregious errors in this video. That is not what anaphylactic shock is. You don’t go into anaphylactic shock by being beaten etc. Anaphylactic shock is a very specific type of shock caused by an intense allergic histamine release. Second bilirubin is not an enzyme. It does not break down red blood cells. It is a breakdown product of the haem part of haemoglobin.
In addition to evidence pointing toward the 13-14th centuries there's one piece of evidence that points clearly _away_ from the first century. The weave of the fabric is of a particular pattern. It's a pattern that does not appear to have been used until many centuries after the 1st century. However it is a type of weave that was commonly used in France during the middle ages. Archeologists have found burial shrouds and other fabrics from 1st century Judea and they don't resemble the shroud fabric.
The more compelling arguement is that the pollen proves that the shroud is in the right geophpacical location in the right time period. In totality, in my opinion its PROBABLY the burial wrappings of a Jewish man who lived in the right time frame to be Christ, who was subjected to Roman Crucificion and wore during that execution something consistent with a crown of thorns who also has what appears to be fluid deposition from a wound in the side. All of which seems to correspond to the death of Jesus of Nazareth account found in the gospels.
@@robschaller9061 Actual, real pollen research has proven nothing other than the fact that the shroud carries pollen from all over the world including North America, probably carried by visitors during all these centuries. Currently there is nothing, nothing at all, to support the notion that the shroud was an actual burial wrapping, that it came from Israel, or that it is about 2000 years old. The best apologetic position is "there is not 100% proof".
The "shroud" was miraculously discovered in the mid 14th century. The bishop of Troyes, near where the "shroud" was found, sent a letter to the then-pope Clement, explaining that a local artist had confessed to him (the bishop) that he had made the "shroud." Pope Clement, and every pope including the current pope, refuse to claim that the "shroud" is authentic. If even the catholic church, beloved of making extravagant claims for relics, refuses to claim this "shroud" as authentic, how could anyone even consider the claim?
Because of the evidence. No matter what, if it's a hoax, you have to admit it's very elaborate. And why exactly did this "forger" confess immediately? Went through all that extraordinarily ellaborate trouble, only to trash it. Seems awfully convenient. Overzealous, gloryseeking "hoax hunters" exist. Even Bishops... "What are the chances it's real anyway - I'll just call it a day and say that I, in my great alertness sniffed out a hoaxer. Look at me, oh Pope." (Note that if christianity is true, Satan literally exists.)
By the way, why did those involved with the carbon dating refuse to hand over their data for decades before someone forced their hands via the freedom if information act? Why would scientists wish to hide their process and results used to date the shroud? You'd think they would happily share it with the world.
but did they though? Did they refuse? You realize those scientists are under no legal authority of the FOIA, right? FOIA is for government, not scientists..
You are exactly right about the "body being disportionate" (2:00), because that's one of the main things that made me question it. I believe the figure is over 6 foot, like 6'2" to 6'4".
Would the body not be disproportionate after sustained torture? Limbs would be torn out of sockets, and body parts would be twisted into unnatural positions. The Gospels themselves record that Christ was unrecognisable when he was brought down from the cross.
Dan, you are clueless about what you are talking about. The 1988 tests were done on cotton edge pieces.. The shroud is linen, and contains micro precise imagining.
I recall there is also no historical mention of the shroud before the 14th Century. The first mention is exactly the time the Carbon 14 data suggested it was created. The data was taken by three different labs using different pieces about 1” square of the cloth.
There are mentions of objects that could be the shroud, but by different names obviously. The carbon dating sample was cut from a single corner and was divided into three parts, then sent to three different laboratories.
@@seulanen576 totally - including early gospels themselves if they are to be believed, describing burial cloths left after 'resurrection' and, holy Roman empire accounts referencing similar-sounding relics.
"38 Later, Joseph of Arimathea asked Pilate for the body of Jesus. Now Joseph was a disciple of Jesus, but secretly because he feared the Jewish leaders. With Pilate’s permission, he came and took the body away. 39He was accompanied by Nicodemus, the man who earlier had visited Jesus at night. Nicodemus brought a mixture of myrrh and aloes, about seventy-five pounds. e 40Taking Jesus’ body, the two of them wrapped it, with the spices, in strips of linen. This was in accordance with Jewish burial customs."
Pollen experts have looked at the shroud and they can with 100% certainty place the shroud in the area surrounding and including Jerusalem at the right time period based on the various pollen CURRENTLY in the shroud. Certain species are ONLY found in that area of Israel and some of them found are extinct and specific to that time period. YOu can argue that its not Jesus but just a jewish man who happened to be crucified by the romans and had wounds consistent with Judean thorn wounds on the head. What you cant argue and is not supported is that the shroud was made in the late 1300s. No one from that time period, not a single human being from that time period would have know about Pollen and its ability to tell you where linens came from and roughly when.
You say there are multiple different carbon 14 analyses, trying to make it sound like loads of tests were done, but do you know that in fact there was only one sample taken, and that recent tests conducted more recently with new technology put the date of the Shroud within the ambit of the first century? Also, the total lack of vanillin shows the cloth must be over 1,000 years old. It's known that the shroud was damaged and then repaired, so where are the repair patches? The story of how Ray Rogers, director of the STURP, came to agree that the sample was taken from a repair patch is interesting in itself. Regarding modesty, if it was the intention of the artist to do that, he would have had Jesus wearing a loincloth or something. The hands cover the nether regions because he is arched forward. I'm lying on my sofa now, even without arching forward it's quite easy to cover that part, and I don't have exceptionally long arms.
Also you can do the experiment of painting your face with something, lay on your back and cover your face with a piece of fabric, then see the results. Spoiler alert, it doesn't look like that. It looks more like... Google "head texture". Yeah, more like that
There was separation between the body and the cloth when the image was created. It is not a contact image. I did the experiments you are referring too. I will give you the video link so you can see what it looks like. This was done with a life cast body same height as the man in the Shroud Image. You will learn alot fast. ruclips.net/video/uDRCVLOv1-w/видео.html
@@zephyr-117sdropzone8 Exactly right. Shroud has accurate depth info. To create accurate depth info there must be separation between the object and the film plate. Meaning the body could NOT have been touching the cloth during the image process. Ive spent the last month analyzing hundreds of images for depth info on a 3D brightness map software program that plots the lights and darks of an image on a x y z axis. Shroud has accurate depth info . Extremely good. Even at max gain. Painting and photos and man made images do not, unless they know in advance how the software analyzes an image and then uses it as "quality control" to make an image and then present it and say "See we debunked the 3D image on the Shroud theory" This is what skeptics have been reduced to.
@@GoodShepherdFilms3333 Correct. If the face was directly contacted to the Shroud, then absolutely, it's fake, as the image would show up with the face wide in the middle, then the sides of the head stretched diagonally upward on both sides of the face. But that isn't how the body was positioned. Frankly, I'll never accept any report that debunks the Shroud. There's too much at stake for globalists and anyone anti-Christian. If this thing is 1st century and comes from Jesus, do you know what would happen? Economy collapses all over the world. People leaving gambling, porn, money-making schemes, etc. Other religions mostly die off, especially Islam, Hinduism, etc. Judaism doesn't, but I'd assume they finally realize their messiah came, so Christianity and Judaism will merge like how was always intended. But the point is, there would be no room left to deny Jesus anymore. That would terrify the elite and greedy bastards trying to control the world.
*Anatomy* The biggest problem is the position of the eyes. They are too close to the top of the head. Also the fingers are long. Both of these were common features in art of the (1300s?). The person is European, probably from the Italian peninsula Bending the back a little allows the hands to reach the groin. But why would a corpse be bent like that? It seems the corpse is represented as bent in order to cover the groin.
I think the suggestion is that he wasn’t lying flat as he would have entered rigor mortis in the position he died in on the cross. I don’t know anything about the eyes or fingers though
@@caidenhodges9103 It’s not the bending of the legs, but of the back that make putting one’s hands over one’s groin possible. The position on the cross might require bending the legs, but the back? Look at the distance from the top of your own forehead to the middle of your eyes. It is about the same distance as from the middle of your eyes to your chin. Now look at the Shroud. The eyes on “Jesus” are much closer to the top of his head than to his chin. That was a popular art style.
@@scienceexplains302 I’m not of the opinion it’s authentic. But if you died while hanging from your hands you would necessarily slump forward leading your back to bend. I could be mistaken though
So this forgerer painted on animal blood? Yet no brush marks or any sign of directionality are to be found on the shroud. Did he spray it on through a straw? Mighty good result if he did?
@@rickelmonoggin mate - the image is proven BURNED into the fabric by radiation which emanated from the inside out. No paint involved. The blood, was stained into the proven, first century AD circa linen weave pattern on the cloth, prior to the less than 1mm singing from the radiation - and of a human, RH factor type - still more common in the middle east. That's the science - whatever you 'believe' about who the guy was. I enjoy the time travellor from another universe theory personally, that's pretty feasible. But maybe he was 'enlightened', a being from another dimension - who the hell can say. He certainly had some influence - there aren't many guys with the same, recorded 'overkill' death - especially the thorn 'crown'. Newer images have revealed the image also has Jewish prayer tefillin and an undergarment visible. The early first century-minted Roman/Judean eye coins placed to keep them closed after rigor mortis - are of some interest too? Opening the mind to potential new experiences of 'Science' findings and reviewing them more critically, seems pretty vital if entering any debate without bias.
The shroud is a fascinating medieval artifact, as you say a work of art. I say that as a Christian who believes absolutely the crucifixion and bodily resurrection of Christ.
What BS. If you really are dumb enough to believe the Shroud is a medieval fake, then you must explain how whoever fabricated it must have: 1. Known the precise methods of crucifixion in the first century. 2. Be proficient enough in over 100 scientific disciplines and also collectively outweigh the intelligence of the people who performed hundreds and hundreds of tests on the Shroud and who are not finding any indications of a forgery. 3. Possessed the medical knowledge of a modern expert surgeon. 4. Utilized an art process unknown to any great master, never duplicated before or since. 5. Be able to foresee and approximate principles of photographic negativity that would not be discovered for centuries. 6. Imported a piece of old cloth of Middle Eastern manufacture. 7. Used a coloring agent which would be unaffected by intense heat. 8. Be able to incorporate in his work details (that have only recently been discovered), that the human eye cannot see and that are visible only with the most advanced computer-scanning devices. 9. Be able to reproduce flawlessly, on a nearly flat linen surface, in a single color, undistorted 3-D characteristics of a human body in a 'negative format' on the tops of the threads, while conversely showing the 'blood' as positive and soaking all the way through. 10. Get somewhere the blood of a tortured man and apply it before creating the image. 11. Get limestone from Jerusalem, and pollen particles from the middle east, in special from plants with thorns, that flourish only between March and April.
What gets me about this is that it is not a shroud. A shroud is a bolt of cloth wrapped AROUND a corpse, the way mummies are wrapped (but obviously not as tight). A shroud has several purposes. It prevents insect infestation. It holds back the reek of a rotting body. It prevents animals for nibbling on it. And as the body begins to putrefy and leaks liquids, a proper shroud absorbs them and keep them contained. For all these reasons, a shroud had to cover all the body, NO exposed skin. If an image was transposed to the cloth that was wrapped around, it would show itself in a series of partial images, easy to miss as just random stains. This cloth was draped lengthwise like a primitive photographic plate. In practice, the "shroud" of Turin would be open along both sides. In other words, this the tablecloth of Turin.
Yeah, that’s not how it was done in Judea. The cloth was wrapped around from head to toe, then another cloth was wrapped around the head. Some jewish sects still practice this in Israel right now.
@@paulpierce2051 Exactly - it get's you sometimes, how people only apply their own, limited knowledge based in 'now' and simple, basic understandings of 'outdated science facts'.
Wow! Amazingly twisted perfectly crafted words to make your point of it being a forgery. You just casually ignore the facts of it being actual DNA . And, the fact that it is a 3d image. How can you possibly refute these facts?
The up loader states and I quote "the fingers are grotesquely long" The fingers are exactly the same length as mine. I own a museum quality replica of the Shroud, $2,000. Same dimensions as the original. Also this can be verified as being true by going to shroud scope. They have measuring tools extremely accurate. Go ahead measure the fingers. They are forensically accurate. Measure any part of the anatomy yourself. All forensically accurate (with exception of right elbow) The reason the fingers appear as being long is because the metacarpal bones are visible. This is evidence that the information that created the image on the Shroud came from the inside of the body in the Shroud, as in how a X ray image is created. Also the body we see on the Shroud image is NOT lying flat. The upper torso is leaning forward and that is why hands are in the position they are in. Upper torso is leaning forward at the same angle of the head board in the Garden Tomb. Body of Jesus was not lying flat in the tomb. If the body was lying flat the hands would be up further. Up-loader is simply not understanding the position of the body. If he would have run tests he would know what he is saying is wrong. The body image of the Shroud is forensically accurate to a man 5' 11" about 175lbs The only part of the body that is not forensically accurate is measuring the right elbow to the fingers. It is longer than the other. That elbow is dislocated as is right shoulder. Further dislocated by hanging from the cross. The dislocation of elbow and shoulder is Most likely as a result of Jesus falling on the way up the hill as is recorded in the Gospels . Also it states in scripture "my bones are all out of joint" Meaning dislocated. So the dislocated elbow and shoulder is in agreement with the Bible. Also jaw is dislocated and the nose is dislocated and possibly the left knee that is flexed inward on image, and has multiple scratches and appears damaged, Anyways the up-loader is in disagreement with no less than 7 forensic pathologists and medical examiners. Who all echo the same statement "The authenticity of the Shroud from the point of view of anatomy and physiology is a scientific fact' Those are the forensic facts of the case and they are indisputable.
My friend athiests and scientists try to cover up anything because they are too scared for the truth. Keep up the good work!!! I would love to keep in contact with you on your news with the shroud. I guess I really want to know why the shroud hasn’t been on the worldwide news to be authentic
Respectfully, If I paid two thousand dollars for something I was convinced was authentic, I'd be very reluctant to consider any evidence however compelling that it was not authentic because it would suggest I was duped and taken in by a scam. That's a very hard thing to accept. People wrongly equate the authenticity of this artifact with their personal faith. This is the false logic of blind faith. A person can reject the shroud as a fake and still embrace the principles of Christianity without contradiction.
Listen up everybody. The old man at the start of the video was basically presenting some scientific findings - but he is ultimately like a scared dog. He does not want to admit that he BELIEVES that the image captured on the shroud is actually YAHWEH in the flesh - in the form of his son who is also known as Jesus Christ. That would make him sound crazy as the Catholic Church makes NO such claims about the shroud of Turin. Its always kept on display as a focal point for the wider world and also as a noted religious artififact in the west. This is the official Catholic position on the shroud of Turin.
@@goodtoGoNow1956 There's another aspect to this controversy that's not so obvious. There are many who don't want to hear any evidence that points to the shroud being a forgery and the catholic church is first among them. I believe the catholic laity are also strongly inclined to adopt the churches position and discount any credible evidence contradicting their acceptance by faith that the shroud is genuine. This number comes to millions. These are the same millions who believe that a real Garden of Eden existed, a real Noah's Ark existed, and they also believe every biblical fable found in scriptures. If iron clad proof was presented to them, they still wouldn't change their minds.
If the cloth were laying over a body there would be image distortion on the projection. You're not going to get a flat face from a rounded cloth....the face would looks disproportioned.
The evidence and research of the shroud is still inconclusive and truth is that we won't know anything further with certainty until the church of Turin allows modern scientists to conduct more extensive research on the shroud which might never happen. -However if you claim to be an artist yourself, wouldn't you find this theory on a forgery just utterly wild ? The underlying truth is that even if this is a forgery, then this is a true masterpiece way ahead of times for a late medieval times timeframe which is even difficult to recreate in modern times. Just out of all the coincidences that need to be in place for this to be a forgery, one that stands out to me is the placement of the nails in his wrists rather than palms. If you search up medieval paintings or even throughout more modern history of the crucifixion all of these works of art show nails and wounds exactly at his palms rather than wrists like it does in the shroud. It is not until recent decades that it has been scientifically proven the at the nails had to logically be at the wrist to be able to carry the weight of a crucified adult. But logically if you are a forger back in the time of the medieval ages trying to make money out of this forgery you'd probably base your forgery on the accepted facts back at that time. Even If you look at all of Giotto's paintings who is said to be the artist behind the shroud they all depict the nails and wounds on the palms rather than wrists and his level of detail and artistic talent is way behind this hyper realistic image and it gets worse with the artistic talent of the average medieval era artworks. Throughout this video you also fail to mention all the more recent research that is against and in favor of the shrouds authenticity, such as the 2018 forensic examination of blood patterns in the shroud or the 2022 x ray dating of the shroud. But going back to the forgery here's a list of all the things that the forger must have gotten right to create such masterpiece: 1) The forger first somehow painted the bloodstains before he painted the image. 2) The forger integrated forensic qualities that would be known in the 19th century. 3) The forger painted the blood flows with genuine AB - blood that he had spiked with excessive amounts of bilirubin since the forger knew that severe scourging with a Roman flagrum would cause erythrocyte hemolysis and jaundice. 4) The forger plotted the scourge marks on the body of the man on the shroud to be consistent with forensic examination with two scourges of the same height. 5) The forger duplicated abrasion and compression marks on the scourge wounds of the shoulders to suggest to 20th century examiners that the man on the shroud had carried heavy weight following the scourging. 6) The forger as the genuis he is, illustrated the nails of the crucifixiction accurately through the wrists instead of the palms as in all other conventional medieval representations. 7) The forger salted the linen with pollen of plants indigenous only to the environment of Judea in anticipation of 20th century palynological analysis, which found traces of the DNA of these plants in the shroud. 8) The forger somehow managed to paint an anatomical and photographic human image in a photographic negative manner centuries before photography. 9) The forger painted the image with some unkwon medium using a technique, 30-40ft away in order to discern the shadowy image as he continued painting. 10) The forger was clever enough to depict an adult with an unplaited ponytail, sidelocks and a beard consistent with a jewish male of the 1st century. 11)The forger thought of such minuscule details such as incorporating dirt from the feet of the man on the shroud consistent with the limestone of the environment of Jerusalem. 12) The forger was such an expert in 20th century biochemistry, medicine, forensics, pathology, anatomy, botany and specially photography and 3D computer analysis, that he has folied the attempts of modern science. His artistic technique clearly triumphs over the likes of Da Vinci and Michelangelo. Or maybe just maybe is this the authentic burial shroud of Jesus? There are so much things that have be just right for this to be an authentic forgery, that the only logical explanation that I have is that the forger was somehow a time traveler. Also is important to ask ourselves if this is a artwork from medieval times why don't we see more of this type of artwork from this age apart of the shroud and the sudarium? If the forger had this level of talent for a medieval artist arguably better than the likes of Michelangelo and Da Vinci at a time where perspective in artwork didn't even exist, then why on earth is this artist not known or mysterious and not one of the greatest artistic genius in human history ? Even a simple google search corroborates some of my points: -In the Middle Ages, art was not created to be realistic and it tended to be 2D. The figures that were portrayed were often important religious scenes. This indicates that symbolism was more significant than a realistic image in this period.
The pollen was not exclusive to Palestine at all. The dust was not exclusive to Jerusalem either. Pigment HAS been found on the shroud. Linen never absorbs pigment. The fingers as represented are way too long. Etc. Sorry, you haven't proven anything.
@@sarahahmed113 Pssst. No pigment was ever found on the cloth. Also, the only coloring on it was on the patches used to match the original cloth when it was repaired. It has been dated with new methods NOT using patch areas and it is consistent with the time period it should be from to be authentic. The only thing that exists in the whole world like this cloth, is this cloth. Do the math.
3) this is simply untrue. Just a case of shroudies getting carried away. 6) definitely untrue. There are only 4 surviving examples of Roman crucifixion. None of them have woulds through the hands or wrists and they go through the ankle in a way different from the shroud. 7) again, this is shroudie nonsense. They cannot identify pollen from different parts of the world like this. 8) it isn't anatomically correct. The eyes are significantly too high to be in proportion. Look at every attempt to draw an accurate version from the shroud, they move the eyes down. 10) where is the evidence for how Jewish people did their hair in the 1st century AD? 11) limestone again has been discredited. It actually has more in common with limestone found in France than Judea. 12) the church simply haven't allowed people to study it enough to claim that is has foiled modern science. A team given a week in the 1980s isn't enough. All they have is the idea that it can't be recreated. Scientists cannot recreate the sound of a Stradivarius violin either and they have many more of them to study. Geniuses have always existed. It just so turns out that this genius didn't know how to do eyes properly.
Dan, how do you explain the 3D properties contained in the Shroud of Turin? That no medieval forger could produce. That no scientist can explain or duplicate. That couldn't be seen until the 1970's when the technology was first developed to view it.
Many people believe the Shroud is a painting or some kind of statue with pigment and pressed against the linen. But in any case a skeptic image theory involves adding some kind of material to the cloth when that was not the case . Coloring on the Shroud is due to a re arrangement of the electron bonding of the carbon atoms from single electron bond to double bond. We have a separate video going over that aspect of the image discussion. Be glad to give you the link if interested. Let me try and explain that in simple terms. I have a video that explains it better but I do not want to leave links on a comment section that is not from my channel But anyways. Ok. Here goes. The electrons that make up the carbon atoms in the linen were changed. When that is done it changes the way the linen absorbed and reflected light. The only way we have done this that matches the Shroud coloring is with an argon fluoride laser aimed at a fibril in the UV spectrum with a short burst at one forty billionth of a second. the image is almost like a microscopic singe It only penetrates into the fiber one or 2 micrometers. 100 times thinner than a piece of hair. If you want a link request it.
A bas-relief and tempera painting. Before the paint, the artist put the linen on the bas-relief, a bit wet and let it dry a bit to have the weak penetration. Then, the Shroud artist painted in tempera the areas where the linen was supposed to come into contact with the supposed body so that a negative image resulted (more logical than if he had painted the hollows and therefore less identifiable as a fake). A vermilion tint based on mercury sulphide was then used to represent the bloodstains in the nailed places.
@@revedargent3467 I read Walter McCrone's book on his findings in microscopy, which indicated that there was red vermillion and red ochre on the shroud. Shroud apologists originally said there was no paint found anywhere... and then they had to admit that there was in fact paint, but it came from other shrouds, as people were permitted to rub these shrouds against the Shroud of Turin. I can't imagine how we would only have two colors if this is the case. I just gave up studying the Shroud at that point, because the goal posts always move.
LOL ! 5:44 Quote: "The preponderance of evidence has long supported, and continues to support, the conclusion that the Shroud is an artistic production of the late 13th to 14th centuries." It is blatantly false claim the the Shroud dates to the 13th or 14th century "based on artistic considerations." Nothing could be further from the truth. Artists in the middle ages always portrayed Jesus with nails through the palms of his hands. However, the images on the Shroud show the nail wound in the wrist. What art history does for the Shroud is to prove that it was extant in the sixth century based on the congruence of the facial features of Jesus found on sixth century icons and coins with the facial features of the image on the Shroud. Funny how our narrator fails to mention the neutron absorption hypothesis and that this idea has supporting evidence. Their is currently a one million dollar prize offer to anyone who can acurrately reproduce the Shroud's images. Perhaps Mr. McClellan would like to give it a try, since he is so sure that the images can be reproduced. Dan talks about "propotionality" without considering the facts that this corpse was in a state of rigor mortis and that the victims arms were dislocated. His observation about "long fingers" fails to understand that skeletal features are seen on the Shroud's images and that what he is viewing are the metacarpal bones.
Few problems with the above, the bible doesn't actually tell us how Jesus was suspended on the cross. Nailing wasn't the primary way it was done during his time contrary to popular belief. Usually if nailed, they were also tied first since nailing alone would not hold people onto the cross and would simply be a method of torture. There is no basis for where the nails would be other than a somewhat recent theory that the wrists might work better than the hands, but neither really work on their own. “Contrary to popular representations of Jesus’s crucifixion, it was far more common (and more practical) for Romans to tie the victim’s wrists to the crossbeam with ropes. Nailing through the palms would have been useless as a means of fixing a person to the cross, as the structure of muscle and bone is too fragile to support the body’s weight." (The Cross: History, Art, and Controversy, Robin M. Jensen, p.10) Besides that, the image on the shroud could only make sense if the cloth itself was entirely flat when made. If it was wrapped in any way onto a body, It would appear distorted in expected ways no matter how the image would have been made. For instance, if we are going by the popular idea that this image was created by an intense form of light when Jesus resurrected, if the light is projecting out from his body it would still cause the kind of distortions you would expect if the cloth was not totally flat. Even more problematic for this idea is there's a backside also (which of course the back and front don't match up, a problem commented on for centuries). So in the above scenario, you would have to account for how exactly the image 2d image (with 3d qualities) without the distortion of not being flat (IE wrapped around a body, or placed over it).
@@Eye_of_Horusalso, the feet are not in line with all 4 examples of known crucifixion. The back of the heel was nailed adjacent to the wood, this has it going through the front.
A bas-relief and tempera painting. Before the paint, the artist put the linen on the bas-relief, a bit wet and let it dry a bit to have the weak penetration. Then, the Shroud artist painted in tempera the areas where the linen was supposed to come into contact with the supposed body so that a negative image resulted (more logical than if he had painted the hollows and therefore less identifiable as a fake). A vermilion tint based on mercury sulphide was then used to represent the bloodstains in the nailed places.
@@Twist_UAP In his Last Judgment of the Shroud of Turin, Chicago scientist Walter McCrone details 20 years of research on it. His conclusions are based on microscopic examination of 22 samples of fibers and particles taken from different places in the shroud. He concludes that the image was obtained from red ocher and a ferrous pigment. The Shroud artist painted in tempera the areas where the linen was supposed to come into contact with the supposed body so that a negative image resulted (more logical than if he had painted the hollows and therefore less identifiable as a fake). A vermilion tint based on mercury sulphide was then used to represent the bloodstains in the nailed places. Sindonologists speak well of posterior paint, added, or put forward some other ad hoc hypotheses but which do not come to undermine the credibility of the pigments discovered. Walter McCorne is also at the head of the McCorne laboratory specialized in the analysis of works of art and the discovery of forgeries, a laboratory which the partisans of authenticity hoped at the base that it supports their belief but who backtracked on seeing the results, as they already did for the 1988 carbon dating.
@Rêve D'Argent oh trust me. I am not convinced the image is real mostly because the face is in 2d, which makes no sense. However, Ik find it interesting how the image ever got onto the shroud. ruclips.net/video/tAQQhBnCVQs/видео.html Here is a great video about it.
@@Twist_UAP i totally agree with the problem of dimension, less with the video linked because its sources are only sindonologist's ones. That's why it mostly repeat their speech even if it's not scientificaly accurate.
Confirmation bias and "dogma" can skew both ways. Your points are not definitive enough to conclude anything contrary without clear bias. To act as if the bias can only come from one side is disingenuous. Also, you left a lot out. For example, they bound his face to keep his mouth closed and they bound his body - couldn't that have kept his elbows in a certain position? The carbon dating has issues of course but also the nuns patched it and the dating has been different depending on the fabric samples taken... you picked what you wanted and omitted what you didn't and then called him bias. not very convincing even to someone who just heard of the shroud.
Why is it so hard for people to accept it as an icon, even though it probably was intended by the “artist” to be fraud? I always say that if you were both famous and holy in the Middle Ages your corpse was in for it. So while if someone says they have Saint Paul’s pinkie finger, they don’t, if a church says it has Francis of Assisi’s femur it just might.
You cannot hide paint from high powered microscopes. If it was painted you would see it. When the Shroud of Turin Research went to Turin Italy they were expecting to find a painting. In fact they did research for 6 months prior gathering a list of every paint, pigment and dye ever used in history. They were extremely surprised to discover it was not a painting. They thought they would debunk it as a painting in the first hour of examination. That is the first thing they did. The looked at the Shroud fibers with high powered microscopes. To their surprise they found NOTHING on the colored fibers . coloring is a result of a re arrangement of the electron bonding of the carbon atoms that made up the linen. From single electron bond to double bond. It took them nearly 3 years to figure that out. It is not the result of adding material to the linen
@@GoodShepherdFilms3333 I don't think they did look at the Shroud through high powered microscopes. Of course it rather depends what you call high powered, but the STuRP team do not mention anything more powerful that x50. As the powder observed by Walter McCrone is described as "sub-micron" it would not have been visible at that magnification. Later studies of the sticky tape slides by Eugenia Nitowski and Joseph Kohlbeck, at x300 to x600, show particles clearly.
People love these relics, but as a believer in Yeshua, these things are always pushed by catholics as something else to focus on other than walking in holiness. People want all this evidence for the Biblical account and we don't need it. Plenty of historical evidence proves the Bible, this shroud is a distraction.
Dan, perhaps you could explain the conclusions of the 1978 STURP team, who found that there were paints or dyes on the shroud and that it was not a work of art? You repeatedly use the word 'artistic' despite the fact that this was rejected outright by the STURP team. So on precisely what basis do you claim that the preponderance of evidence supports exactly the opposite conclusion? Academic researchers have also questioned, challenged and even called for the 1988 results to be retracted, including one of the leading scientists on the STURP team. Incidentally, you are quite capable of finding out the speaker's name. It is incredibly rude, disrespectful, and disingenuous of you to refer to them as 'this individual' as if it would somehow be beneath you to find out who they are.
Why does this discussion ever get to the question of whether there were paints or dyes on the shroud, rather than establishing that this shroud was not the product of some other, ancient, wrapped-up, corpse? How does anybody get past proving that anybody even named Jesus was ever in contact with this fabric, rather than some completely reandom, unrelated guy named Jerome, Esdras, or Barbelo?
Just curious do you deny that there is no way to reproduce the image with the same properties? They pfobably would have positioned the hands in that way. The fingers are not long you are looking at an xray where you would see the bones up into the hand.
@@clairew2184 I'm confused... how would foreshortening ever occur from an object making an impression of itself by contact with another object? Foreshortening is a phenomenon to do with perspective (e.g. a person's hand appearing noticeably larger than their body because it is significantly closer to a camera). There can't be any forced perspective of an object on a surface where the marking is created BY the object itself. If there was ever a body under the shroud, the marks you are seeing are exactly the dimensions of that body. Try to cover your hand in paint and rest it on a piece of paper - you won't be able to make any "foreshortening" occur (without moving either your paper or your hand). Your printed hand will be, at MOST, exactly the same size as your actual hand.
You are also to me are disrespectful towards Barrie Swartz the founder of The Shroud Of Turin website and scientific photographer of the STURP team of 1978. This is not some wild eyed lunatic screaming the sky is falling! He is a measured and careful man who holds to his Jewish faith but acknowledges that there is no natural explanation for the image on the shroud. His website is the most extensive on the topic and for that I am grateful. If you are going to use the source then you must credit to who it comes from.This is where academic honesty comes into play. Maybe you don’t want people to research and find contradictions to what you are saying
The hands were placed over the genitals for reasons of modesty? What utter guff. Why wouldn't the artist have simply depicted the body wearing a loin cloth as every painting of his alleged era did? I love the smug way the sceptics say there have been a number of theories put forward as to how it was faked yet not one has come close after decades of study and experimentation. How about the biological/anatomical issues? How would a medieval forgery know that nails were hammered through the wrists rather than the palm of the hand. Every painting of that era depicts the nails driven through the hands. The same can be said of the cap of thorns as opposed to the oft depicted wreath. The nonsense about the anatomical impossibility of hands reaching down to cover the genitals has also been explained. The body was bent at the knees and raised up slightly at the upper back and head due to rigamortis. The shroud has three dimensionality. The shroud image us an actual negative. What forgerer would know how a man was flogged all over his body rather than just the back as depicted in most paintings? I could go on but there smug sceptics are pathetic. They are either ignorant or disingenuous. When are the brilliant scientists of our modern world going to find a way to replicate what a medieval conman knocked up by himself centuries ago?
You literally just proved to all of us you have no idea what you are talking about, and ignored the video. Also the basic fact that they wouldn't have used that much cloth on a prisoner for burial....
The time spent writing that could have been better spent lying on the floor and seeing if your arms naturally reach your genitals. Natural, as in your shoulders flat, arm weight engaged, accounting for the torso slope. Your arms would need to be longer for that position, particularly if you died with them outstretched.
The nail holes don't go through the wrist. It's hard to see but measuring proportions and where the exit wounds would be on the back shows they appear to be farther down
@@jenna2431I laid on my back and easily made the same position as the shroud shows, hands covering my groin. This point about the hands covering the groin make no sense to me. On the one hand skeptics would like us to believe it was staged with a model or a cadaver, but on the other hand is anatomically incorrect. Which is it? And why do I easily assume the same position myself?
blah blah blah......... all comments and no evidence. All that you just commented on your video has been scientifically proven by world renowned scientists. Do you even have a background of science and archaelogy. Seriously, if you want to prove something bring us the evidencEs, cause we do not care about your opinions. If I wanted some opinions I would have watched the simpsons LOL
Hey Dan, I want to believe its a hoax. But some things just dont line up. First the dates are just wishy washy. And within those ranges. There simply isnt an artist or group of artists, who are making similar fakes. Most illustraitions of any image back then, relied so much on hatching. And their knowledge of form wasnt that developed either. Do you have a specify artist or similar images i mind that are similar to the shroud?
Exactly there is non, non other arguably "artistic creation" of that time late medieval period apart of the shroud of turin and the sudarium of oviedo show such a precise technique and minuscule details. I invite you to look at my recent comment in this video where I go more in depth on it, you can see it by sorting by newest first
Who is one of the most credible, well-informed, up to date sources of evidence. He was an athiest and sceptic when he started as the first science team's photographer. He has examined and spent much time with the shroud - no doubt it was formed by processes involving light radiation, which we still don't understand the Science behind.
If they weren’t trained in anatomy then it’s quite likely that their work would be disproportionate. When you look at art through history it is easy to distinguish an artist that studied anatomy from one who didn’t.
@@mrq6270 You don't need a vet degree to distinguish a horse from a cow. Likewise, you don't need a course in anatomy to draw a properly proportioned image of a human being.
@@oldschoolsaint that is true. Nevertheless, an artist who is trained in anatomy will recognize when the proportions of a human figure are off. And won’t accept a disproportionate depiction, unless the distortion is deliberate. It just looks awkward. Studying anatomy allows the artist to create, and pose a figure from imagination, and get it right. As you point out, the untrained artist will depend entirely on observation. And if you look at a lot of art then you will see that they often don’t get it right. As for the shroud, Dan is quite right about the hands. Even though the image is not particularly clear, he is correct that the placement of the hands doesn’t work unless the figure had really unusual arms. And those fingers really seem to belong to E.T.
Sorry, You sound intelligent and well read but your facts and not correct. Ray Rogers is not a high school chemistry student. He tested and concluded that the parts of the shroud that they tested were the worst areas to test and the results give a tainted and fuzzy date due to contamination. Go back to the drawing board and really and honestly investigate his and other PHDs findings on the shrouds authenticity. If you are academically and intellectual honest you can only come to one conclusion and that is the man in the shroud is either Jesus Christ or someone who was tortured like Him. Both scenarios would be supernatural and miraculous. Readers of this comment don’t be afraid of this gentleman’s intellect he is only asserting what he doesn’t really know. Do your own due diligence and you will find the shroud of Turin to be exactly what I have stated. Then it is your decision to decide option one or two. If you choose two that’s okay but know that you still have to deal with Jesus Christ as Lord and Christ. Deal with it now or later but one day you will have to face the reality that Jesus is both Lord and Christ
Yeah, I saw it. I thought he did a really good job. Considering he is not a Shroud Researcher he knows alot details about the Shroud very few people know. I was very surprised. Excellent presentation. Fact based, impartial, thorough
It is false and only distributes lies by omission. Carbon dating is the first one in this clip. It has been debunked 17 years ago that the carbon dating should be repeated.
@@ophanimangel3143 The main argument against authenticity and that could be enough on its own: the dimensions are not correct. The VP-8 only found 3D info of a bas-relief (about 3cm deep) and not of a whole body. It is a second operation, made from these results, which recreated a body with a program to add the correct dimensions of a body. We find a 3D body because we implemented a program to have a 3D body. This second operation can be considered artistic at best, fraud at worst. A body printed on a sheet renders an image which lengthens as it moves away from the center and which breaks up with the folds of the fabric or simply the extension of its surface because of the curve it takes. The hair must mark in a more blurred and light way, even stick to the skull since it is the blood which must mark. The sheet must be excessively stretched so as not to end up in places with hollows also represented but only the full ones. For that, the mark is in this sense too delimited. Where have the sides gone? Why would Jesus' followers have stretched the sheet above and below (what supports the body in this diagram?) so as to mark only the solids and not the sides? it doesn't make any sense. Ah and then given the small distance between the back and the front of the head, it seems impossible that the top of the skull did not print the fabric and therefore not connect the two. There is a difference of almost 7 cm between the frontal image and the dorsal image. The arms are too long (just enough to hide the genitals) as are the fingers. The forehead is too small. The body is surprisingly very large for the time of Jesus but much less when compared to the figure of the medieval knight. Even assuming that the body is bent (the use of rigor mortis here is more of a magic solution that comes to counter attacks on proportions with bogus assumptions) it does not explain all the proportions more than 'unusual (like fingers). Especially since the folded body does not change the fact that we have the choice between a tempera technique on bas-relief on one side (which explains the dimensions and makes it possible to have a task with similar characteristics such as the showed the various experiments made) and a body in suspension which is printed thanks to a magic ray on a sheet itself in suspension. And then the shot of the bent body also increases the problem of the front/back junction of the skull because a bent body requires an even longer sheet and changes the deformation of the image even more. The sample for carbon dating was carried out by three sindonologists (hard to say that they would have failed on purpose) including experts in ancient textiles (if they are not able to recognize a more recent piece of stitched fabric from almost a millennium and a half so there is a big problem) on a rectangular piece taken from the bottom left of the ventral image and specifically far from any damaged or stitched part (it can be seen with the naked eye). The sample was then sent to three prestigious independent laboratories recognized for their excellence in this method and whose results are consistent with each other (the shroud was woven with flax harvested between 1260 and 1390) and with the appearance of the shroud in the story. The fires of 1532 added scorch and water marks (to put out the fire) to this one but that's not enough to discredit the carbon dating. The ad hoc hypothesis of contamination by a fungus which would have distorted the dating is contradicted by the calculations made by Henri Brock which shows that the fungus should have brought twice as much carbon as the laundry currently contains. His calculations also show that the fire should have contributed twice as much carbon as the laundry contains if the fire only dated back to 1800 and more than 5 times for 1500. It should not be forgotten either that any dating carbon is preceded by a cleaning phase to remove the carbon pollution. The ad hoc hypothesis of proton bombardment is itself such a mystery that it absolutely cannot pass Ockham's razor and totally contradicts the laws of physics. There is an excellent scientific article which presents the carbon dating of 1988, the extreme precautions and guarantees that have been taken so as not to make any mistakes (great media pressure) as well as the immediate and unsurprising desire of believers to pass this dating for bad because it does not validate their beliefs. It also presents the subsequent unsuccessful attempts to contradict this dating by ad hoc hypotheses and by other datings, but whose methodological biases were too great to draw anything from them, until recently and far from completly refuting this dating. The opinion also of Christopher Ramsey (director of the AMS laboratory in Oxford at the time of writing the article and a specialist in carbon dating) is reported there, who accepts the idea of a new dating with other techniques (tested these and not created for the shroud) in the hope that it will allow believers to no longer take pleasure in the denial of scientific results which in the long term will make it possible to clean up the scientific debate. The article in question dates from December 23, 2013, was written by Richard CORFIELD and is entitled "Chemistry in the face of belief". However, it is more easily found by searching for "The enduring controversy of the Turin Shroud". Quote from Christopher Ramsey in 2008: "I'm always willing to consider any serious suggestions of why the dating might not be correct and to do further tests to investigate such suggestions. In this sense, i keep an open mind - as I would about any scientific investigation. However, my strong intuition, based on my experience in this field, is that the new hypothesis will not challenge the accuracy of the original radiocarbon dating exercise." This position is shared by all specialists in radio-carbon dating. Jacques Evin, for example, gives a very similar opinion. In 2019, T. Casabianca (accustomed to publications on the Turin's shroud) published a study in the journal Archaeometry, which showed a lack of homogeneity in the raw carbon dating data, without proving an ancient origin. Indeed, Walsh Bryan and Schwalbe Larry show in 2020 in their article "An instructive inter-laboratory comparison: The 1988 radiocarbon dating of the Shroud of Turin" that only a few decades of difference are necessary to reach the 95% reliability announced in 1988. In 2005, Raymond Roger, member of STURP, published a study (R.N.Rogers, “Studies on the radiocarbon sample from the shroud of turin.”, Thermochimica Acta, 425 (2005), p. 189-194.) which claimed to show that the dating of 1988 is false because made on patched parts. It is based on the vanillin level of the fibers taken, on a Wiesner test and claims both to demonstrate the invalidity of the 1988 dating but also to date the shroud itself to an age between 1300 and 3000 years. Many problems with this study: We have no guarantee where the sample comes from or its storage conditions. This one was given to him by Luigi Gonella who claims to hold it from the 1988 levy but no proof is provided, only his word. Nothing says that it is not a fabric from a totally different origin. The heat from the Shroud's fire was more than enough to vaporize the Vanillin from the surface of the Shroud in seconds and even much less. Rogers' dating method is unique, unprecedented and therefore not at all well-established, unlike that of 1988, which leads to suspicion. The values of the Wiesner test were taken in a perfectly arbitrary way. The analysis is made on a surface sample only (by adhesive) and without taking into account surface phenomena. It misses the margins of error of various numerical values, sources and references while various errors suggest that Rogers probably did not pass the peer review or that he found a way to cheat with it. In 1973, an analysis of the pollens and the dust of the linen concluded to a passage of this one in Jerusalem at the time of Jesus. Problem: the study lacks considerable precision, other pollens which should have been there (if this was the case) are not, as well as the calcyte deposited on the pollens during the fire of 1532 and the images of criminologist Max Fry strangely do not show traces of the fire (a good classic fraud in sight) which is explained by the admission of this one according to which he had taken reference images and not the real ones images of the shroud pollens. For Marzia Boi in 2010: her work is neither in agreement with previous pollen surveys and their expectations, nor in agreement with the study by Gianni Barcaccia who speaks to us squarely of pollen coming from East Africa until to China, the two willingly forgetting that the Shroud was not always kept well protected but was even exposed to the public (the degradation of the pollen is therefore quite different from the ideal state they imagine) on different occasions during which an audience of believers from all over the world could come to see him. It is not really possible to determine with precision and certainty the geographical origin of a pollen. A palynologist will tell you that we can (at best) determine the biological family to which he belongs and then see in which places in the world this family has been found over the ages, but there again it remains excessively unreliable and imprecise.
Listen up everybody. The old man at the start of the video was basically presenting some scientific findings - but he is ultimately like a scared dog. He does not want to admit that he BELIEVES that the image captured on the shroud is actually YAHWEH in the flesh - in the form of his son who is also known as Jesus Christ. That would make him sound crazy as the Catholic Church makes NO such claims about the shroud of Turin. Its always kept on display as a focal point for the wider world and also as a noted religious artififact in the west. This is the official Catholic position on the shroud of Turin.
The person he is referring to in this video is a Jewish expert on the Shroud, I cannot believe this video or the comment section believes any of this. If you want to learn more search Fr. Andrew Dalton or Barry Strous to name a few. He clearing has not looked at what experts have had to say on this, very poorly researched video.
You are arguing lack of scientific evidence for the shroud being something other than artistic production of the 13th century, by also providing non-scientifically proven method and results! Unfortunately the irony is lost on new. If you really care about science, read this new scientific reasearch then: De Caro, Liberato, et al. "X-ray Dating of a Turin Shroud’s Linen Sample." Heritage 5.2 (2022): 860-870.
Mostly to preserve it. That kind of cloth that old is so sensitive to light, oxygen, moisture,etc. Displaying it or doing to much research on it will ruin it.
..they don't want it contaminated/damaged further- and being a well-verified, first century wove, pure linen cloth, potentially from Judah based on various contemporary micro-pollen found in it, likely it is increasingly delicate to handle?
The sample was contaminated as Ray Rogers admitted when he rexamined his sample. New testing contradicts the carbon 14 X-ray and infra-red spectroscopy obtained a 1st century range. The linen weave was not produced in medieval Europe at the time. A British atheist art historian says that the image is not consistent with medieval style, does not believe it could have been done . The linen probably came from Nazareth which was a centre of fine linen production for Palestine, so I read. Pollen samples on the shroud come from the Levant region. The shroud itself seems to be from 1st century. Could easily have been picked up by a pilgrim or crusader, then produced the image later. The image itself could have been made later....possibly using AB human blood, I guess. There was plenty of brutality and bloodshed during the crusades.
Great video. When Dan says that disproving all proposed explanations wouldn't disprove that the markings were human-made, he could have referred to the basic logical problem: one typically cannot "prove a negative."
Your have to prove the argument, regardless of positive or negative. Any positive argument can be rearranged to be a negative argument, and vice-versa. One argues the positive assertion, another argues the negative assertion, which is a debate. Each side has to support and thereby prove their assertion, weather positive or negative. The negative side cannot just sit it out and claim the positive side has to do all the work.
@@VictorHarrys Thanks for demonstrating your utter ignorance of logic. If you claim X, you must prove X. If my response to your claim is "I do not believe you have proven X," then I have no further burden of proof. A positive argument must always bear the burden of proof. A negative argument, simply refusing acceptance of the positive, has zero burden.
What I find interesting is that the shroud's dating matches with near the end of the crusades. I have to wonder if the Shroud was intended as manufactured propaganda to raise support for more crusades.
The fibrils on the Shroud of Turin fabric have severe electro magnetic radiation damage. The same level of electro magnetic radiation damage as the linen wrapping of the Dead Sea Scrolls, that we know are over 2000 years old. The Shroud MUST be relatively the same age. There is no way the Shroud comes a 13 century time period. This conclusion is not just based on the the radiation damage but examining the forensic evidence in totality. Recent X Ray Scattering tests, a new Science, tells us the cloth comes from the time period of Jesus and many more tests done tell us the same.
You’ve been outdated. Patches of linen which were 1st century have been found in that shroud which was mixed with cotton that was sewn into the shroud. Please bring up more updated sources.
It's not a painted on image you are grotesquely wrong on that one it's impossible how the image was even imprinted on the Shroud because it's practically holographic the way how it's done its 3D. People of that time didn't have that ability do should a thing. It was caused by the radiation of him resurrecting, vibrating to a higher state, you know energy.
@@Useenworldhappened within a forty billionth of a second. So fast, so violently that it only imprinted a single layer of the material. I guess now we know how fast a "twinkling of an eye" is!!
I don’t agree with everything this guy says, like the hands laying could not cover the genitals… Sure they can. My thing is that there is no way a piece of fabric, draped over a dead body, would produce a perfect representation of a human figure. There would be wrinkles, the image would be distorted. It just isn’t possible.
I feel sorry for this guy and all those that say the shroud is a forgery, but at the end of the day, man cannot be saved in his ignorance. People that believe the C14 Carbon dating test was correct are ignoring the facts that proved it was 100% inaccurate.
Ray Rogers said without a doubt that the shroud is not a painting as the image was water stained hence the water did not distort the image. Hence no paint
Listen up everybody. The old man at the start of the video was basically presenting some scientific findings - but he is ultimately like a scared dog. He does not want to admit that he BELIEVES that the image captured on the shroud is actually YAHWEH in the flesh - in the form of his son who is also known as Jesus Christ. That would make him sound crazy as the Catholic Church makes NO such claims about the shroud of Turin. Its always kept on display as a focal point for the wider world and also as a noted religious artififact in the west. This is the official Catholic position on the shroud of Turin.
I just tried laying down and covering myself they way it’s depicted in the shroud. It’s perfectly reasonable. Nothing is hyperextended or stretched out of place. I don’t have a centrifuge or lab equipment. I can’t specify anything from carbon dating, but this i can test and your full of malarkey on this. When you lie about something so easy to test it makes it pretty hard to trust you on the stuff you need to be trusted to believe.
Hi Paul, some people have longer arms than others, it's true, but many people who have succeeded in covering their groin with their hands have not considered the angle at which the arms are bent. It appears that the upper arms are more or less parallel, and in line with the main axis of the body, then bent at the elbows to cover the groin. This is much less easy than using straight arms, angled from the shoulder, and although I cannot deny that it may be possible in your case, it is extremely unusual. I don't think it's fair to call Dan a liar on those grounds.
I have to admit that I’ve never considered that I might, one day, lay down on the floor of my living room and try to lie in a way that allows me to cover my genitals with my hands. New experiences! At any rate, I can’t. In fact, I have to hunch my shoulders forward to get that kind of reach, and my elbows are no longer bent at all, much less at that angle. My arms would have to be at least a foot longer for me to be able to lie in that position naturally, with my elbows bent that way. Actually, I’m not convinced that a foot would do the trick, come to think of it. And if I relax and let my elbow hit the floor, my hands can no longer cover each other at any part of my body, much less my groin. There are genetic conditions that result in elongated limbs (Marfan’s syndrome comes to mind), so perhaps you have one of those?
@@karmachameleon326 I did fracture a clavicle causing some irregularities at the shoulder that could explain some of difference between us. This type of injury although not precise by any notion would be expected if you were hanging your body weight from the wrists for 4 hours.
@@paulpierce2051 Ooof. Nope. It seemed like you were making a rational reply to my statement, then you throw that nonsense in at the end. It has nothing to do with clavicles - my arms are simply not nearly long enough. And no, your arms wouldn’t be significantly lengthened by hanging from them for a few hours, nor would a fracture in the clavicle or shoulders result in that lengthening. Look at the shroud - that image has the shoulders and elbows at perfectly normal positions, with the exception that the arms are abnormally long. Feel free to believe what you wish, it’s not my place to try to convince you of anything, and I have no interest in doing so. But please don’t try to sway my thinking with complete nonsense.
@@karmachameleon326 The forearms are elongated. I’m not a rocket scientist here but wouldn’t you expect that kind of distortion from a 3D object imposed on a 2d surface? Based on your last reply I have serious doubts about taking you seriously though.
What you failed to mention is that the shroud can only be seen clearly and in total detail is by looking at the image as a negative. You cannot replicate that you, can not paint it , you can not fake it. It’s impossible and you should be able tomorrow see this.
Not true. It is a pseudo negative. For example, if you reverse the image, the hair becomes white. And this aspect has been replicated using medieval techniques.
As most people know, those "European paintings" were based on how Jesus looked on the Shroud. Not vice versa. Few people are dumb enough to think that the image on the Shroud was of some guy from Europe.
It is just a lie by omission, factual studies led by STURP determined there is no significant amount of paint or any substance found on fibers, which could lead to the creation of the image on The Shroud. Walter MacCrone found little bits of vermillion and iron oxide in microscopic amounts and based on this fact concluded the whole image was made this way. In fact the Shroud had contact with many paintings. Carbon dating was also performed not many times but only once on the single 4x1 cm strip in the region where it was reported, it was repaired- obviously it must have led to miscalculation as amounts of C14 would be much lower due to medieval cotton replacement. It is really hard to debunk those theories, everyone who is against the shroud usually hides or diminishes some of the factual data. Btw. how would it be even possible to do something like this 700 years ago? Any naturalistic, scientific explenation?
@@goodtoGoNow1956 Exactly. To me it suspicious that at all times media try to establish The Shroud as fake, presenting reconstructions, sometimes viable artistically, but not having the properties of The Shroud. I myself was convinced for a long time, The Shroud is a hoax. But in fact media outlets and people publishing these theories are misleading their audience. There is no conclusion as to the shroud origin, but it is mindboggling that before VI century Jesus was depicted as the standard roman citizen, and suddenly everything changed - The image of Christ Pantocreator (fully compatible with the face on The Shroud) appeared and since then everyone recognizes Jesus as a long haired and bearded. It begs to question the carbondating. Also new evidence was brought by WAXS, confirming its origin in the 1st century, but it is automatically diminished by sceptics as unreliable. *But why won't they just explain that it must have been created by the forgotten genius medieval psychopath killer, rather than just limit to saying it is fake?*
Listen up everybody. The old man at the start of the video was basically presenting some scientific findings - but he is ultimately like a scared dog. He does not want to admit that he BELIEVES that the image captured on the shroud is actually YAHWEH in the flesh - in the form of his son who is also known as Jesus Christ. That would make him sound crazy as the Catholic Church makes NO such claims about the shroud of Turin. Its always kept on display as a focal point for the wider world and also as a noted religious artififact in the west. This is the official Catholic position on the shroud of Turin.
@Shauni Gothic TV This man is Barrie Schwartz, he is jewish, created and runs a site "shroud . ... com", which actually consists of all the research done throughout the years. Basically this youtube creator, who portrays himself as a wise wholesome person is so against the shroud that he didn't bother to do basic factchecking.
The face is not three-dimensional but on the contrary rather two-dimensional. A three-dimensional face does not have the same proportions as a photo as is the case for that of the shroud which, once its 3D shape has been reconstructed by computer, gives the shape more of a bas-relief than of a body. , and again, even a bas-relief seems like a lot. The 3D shape is obtained by computer only with the addition of a program which accentuates the proportions so as to have a correct 3D body, which constitutes a fraud. We find a 3D body because we implemented a program to have a 3D body. A body printed on a sheet renders an image which lengthens away from the center and which breaks up with the folds of the fabric or implements the extension of its surface because of the curve it takes. The hair must mark in a much more blurred and light way, even stick to the skull since it is the blood which must mark. Moreover, the sheet must be excessively stretched (what would be the reason?) so as not to end up in places with hollows also represented but only full ones. For that, the mark is in this sense too delimited. Where have the sides gone? Why would the followers of Jesus have stretched the sheet like this above and below (what supports the body in this diagram?) so as to mark only the solids and not the sides? it doesn't make any sense. Oh and then he wouldn't miss a game by chance? No, because given the small distance between the back of the head and the front of the head, it seems quite incredible that the top of the skull did not print the fabric and therefore not connect the two. The sample for carbon dating was carried out by three sindonologists (it is therefore difficult to say that they would have failed on purpose) including experts in ancient textiles (if they are not able to recognize a piece of sewn fabric and much more recent then there is a big problem) on a rectangular piece taken from the bottom left of the ventral image and specifically away from any damaged or stitched up part. The sample was then sent to three prestigious independent laboratories whose results are consistent with each other and with the appearance of the shroud in history. The fires of 1532 added scorch and water marks (to extinguish the fire) to this one but carbon 14 is not the only dating we have and the fact that it dates the shroud at a date different from what the believers say (the shroud was woven with flax harvested between 1260 and 1390) is not synonymous with an error of the former but just a belief of the latter. The ad hoc hypothesis of contamination by a fungus which would have falsified the dating is contradicted by the calculations made by Henri Brock which shows that the fungus should then have contributed twice as much carbon as the laundry currently contains if the fire dated only from 1800 and more than 5 times for 1500. The ad hoc hypothesis of proton bombardment is itself a mystery so great that it absolutely does not allow Ockham's razor to pass and contradicts d completely the laws of physics. There is an excellent scientific article which presents the carbon dating of 1988, the extreme precautions and guarantees that have been taken so as not to make any mistakes (great media pressure) as well as the immediate and unsurprising desire of believers to pass this dating for bad because it does not validate their beliefs. It also presents the subsequent unsuccessful attempts to contradict this dating by ad hoc hypotheses and by other datings, but whose methodological biases were too great to draw anything from them. The opinion also of Christopher Ramsey (director of the AMS laboratory in Oxford at the time of writing and specialist in radiocarbon dating) is reported there, who accepts the idea of a new dating with other techniques (tested these and not created for the shroud) in the hope that it will allow believers to no longer wallow in the denial of scientific results which in the long term will make it possible to clean up the scientific debate. The article in question dates from December 23, 2013, was written by Richard CORFIELD and is entitled "Chemistry in the face of belief". However, it is more easily found by searching for "The enduring controversy of the Turin Shroud". Quote from Christopher Ramsey in 2008 : "I'm always willing to consider any serious suggestions of why the dating might not be correct and to do further tests to investigate such suggestions. In this sens, i keep an open mind - as I would about any scientific investigation. However, my strong intuition, based on my experience in this field, is that the new hypothesis will not challenge the accuracy of the original radiocarbon dating exercise." This position taken by Christopher Ramsey is shared by all radio-carbon dating specialists who have taken an interest in this subject. Jacques Evin, for example, gives a very similar opinion. In 2005, Raymond Roger, member of STURP, published a study (R.N.Rogers, “Studies on the radiocarbon sample from the shroud of turin.”, Thermochimica Acta, 425 (2005), p. 189-194.) which claimed to show that the dating of 1988 is false because made on patched parts. It is based on the vanillin level of the fibers taken, on a Wiesner test and claims both to demonstrate the invalidity of the 1988 dating but also to date the shroud itself to an age between 1300 and 3000 years. Many problems with this study: We have no guarantee where the sample comes from or its storage conditions. This one was given to him by Luigi Gonella who claims to hold it from the 1988 levy but no proof is provided, only his word. Nothing says that it is not a fabric from a totally different origin. The heat from the Shroud's fire was more than enough to vaporize the vanillin from the surface of the Shroud in seconds and even much less. Rogers' dating method is unique, unprecedented and therefore not at all well-established, unlike that of 1988, which leads to suspicion. The values of the Wiesner test were taken in a perfectly arbitrary way. The analysis is made on a surface sample only (by adhesive) and without taking into account the surface phenomena. It lacks the margins of error of various numerical values. There is a severe lack of sources and references as well as various errors which suggest that Rogers may not have passed the peer review or found a way to cheat with it. In 1973, an analysis of the pollens and the dust of the linen concluded to a passage of this one in Jerusalem at the time of Jesus. Problem: the study lacks considerable precision, other pollens which should have been there (if that was the case) are not, as well as the calcyte deposited on the pollens during the fire of 1532 and the images of the criminologist Max Fry strangely do not report the traces of the fire (a good classic fraud in sight) which is explained by the admission of this one according to which he had taken reference images and not the real pictures of shroud pollens. For Marzia Boi in 2010: her work is neither in agreement with previous pollen surveys and their expectations, nor in agreement with the study by Gianni Barcaccia who speaks to us squarely of pollen coming from East Africa until to China, the two willingly forgetting that the Shroud was not always kept well protected but was even exposed to the public (the degradation of the pollen is therefore quite different from the ideal state they imagine) on different occasions during which an audience of believers from all over the world could come to see him. And then it is not really possible to determine with precision and safety the geographical origin of a pollen. A palynologist will tell you that we can (at best) determine the biological family to which he belongs and then see in which places in the world this family has been found over the ages, but there again it remains excessively unreliable and imprecise. The existence of the trace of the coins inside the eyes has never been demonstrated. It is put forward by several sindonologists (those who have never had the shroud under their eyes and who only base themselves on the photos) but refuted by other sindonologists and by several scientists who do not see these "pieces" when they observe the eyes (they speak rather of a pareidolia for those who believe they see them as well as on certain modifications that the photos may have received) and are based on the impossibility (or excessively low possibility) for a linen with such a seam to print signs that are so small on a piece that is too small. Covering the eyes with coins is not a Jewish custom.
Honest question: What comprises the "overwhelming preponderance of evidence"? The problem seems to be, rather, that almost all the other data points to the shroud at least *not* being medieval, if not it being authentic, whatever that would mean. The carbon dating has been done once, on a single patch of sample that was cut up in three parts and sent to three different laboratories. All the subsequent datings (note: these methods are apparently not as established as C14, e.g. the latest being a yet experimental x-ray scattering a few years ago) place the shroud in an earlier time period. Another problem, and arguably the most important one, is philosophical. Our current mainstream worldview simply does not allow for something like this shroud to be a result of anything other than human artistry. It is a totally reasonable stance, but in that light, which side of this debate has higher stakes and is more prone to "come from a place of dogmatism"? Christianity is not affected whether the Shroud of Turin is proven to be a forgery.. But what if it is proven to be 1st century Palestinian artefact? You ought not to kid yourself thinking scientists do not have their own horse in the race too (a proverb often used by the "individual" in those clips, Barrie Schwortz, a Jewish photographer and a member of the STURP team, when he stresses that he has no personal religious bias about the shroud), merely because they are human beings. We can never prove that the man in the shroud is Jesus Christ, much less that he was resurrected, not even that the image is not man-made, but idk, at some point there's a danger of resorting to mere absurdities in order to defend what one believes to be true.
was the blood on the shroud of turin tested? If it is indeed the blood of Christ, it will still be alive and will not have the same blood group of man.
A very well presented analysis of the shroud by Dan McClellan, but trying to oppose religious dogma with rational analysis is like expecting college kids to go to an art museum instead of a raucous football game. Higher aspects of the mind require discernment and reassessing old beliefs, and nothing has such a truculent hold on our mind as religious dogma. Thank you Dan.
It would help if he was fact based, impartial and thorough in his investigation. But he was not. He is either lying or completely ignorant of the facts of the case. He did a terrible job.
@@GoodShepherdFilms3333 In 1988 the catholic church provided three separate laboratories with samples of the shroud and all three came up with the same radio carbon dating result. The shroud's origination was dated between 1260 and 1390. These are facts not opinions, but people will always believe what they want to believe. It's called confirmation bias.
@@TheJoker-wr1cp The joker must be joking. If carbon dating means nothing than science means nothing, the same science that enables you to live a long disease free life, the same science that enables all of us to communicate instantly over enormous distances, the same science that gave us the Hubble telescope, GPS, computer technology, etc., etc., etc.. You meant to say carbon dating means nothing to you because it offers convincing evidence that runs counter to one of your cherished beliefs.
@@michaelmckinney7240 no it means nothing because something happened during that period too the shroud (not the creation) compared to all the clear evidence of the authenticity the carbon dating means nothing. Carbon dating is also extremely flawed especially with fossils (the Darwin cult)
“There’s no data to support the carbon 14 tests were off” Except two studies in peer reviewed journals, one published by oxford, were one of the labs was based. Plus if you look at the raw data (which they only recently released under duress) for the 88 dating the whole experiment was a hot mess. One sample from one area, no control, and the samplers were told ahead of time the date range. You can be against authenticity and for good science. We need to test it again.
Perhaps unbeknownst to many - there is objective data to show that the carbon 14 test was invalid. This was published in 2019 by Tristan Casabianca of France when the "raw data" of the 3 labs was finally released. He had to sue Oxford by the Freedom of Information Law to get the information released. The 1989 paper of Oxford originally said the Chi-square value was 6.2 and just fell within the range of acceptable deviation. In fact, there was data manipulation in that 1989 paper which shows the Chi-square value to be 9.2 - or 1.04% probabillity. This is significant deviation, and thus, the carbon dating is invalid. As we move across the tested 4 samples the shroud samples get 91-97 years younger PER INCH. In no way could it be representative of the whole shroud. It is heterogenous.
@@jimbertrand8587yeah I’ve looked through the raw myself (which was only released under threat of legal action 20 years on, so top tier science) and it’s a total mess.
We must not forget that the scriptures says that prior to Jesus' crucifixion The Roman Soldiers parted his garments, and cast lots to see what every man Should take, The Gospels of Luke and John says that the linen clothes were left behind in the tomb ( Luke 24:12 ) Christians claims that Jesus was physically resurrected as a living human being, Not as a ghost or spirit. This belief then raises the question of whether or not Jesus left the tomb Naked, And according to John 19:39--40, Jesus's body was bound in strips of linen cloths with a hundred pounds of spice. isn't the shroud of Turin one piece of cloth without any sign of been sown together ? And even if blood was found on the shroud, How could anyone prove who's blood that was ? The shroud is a proven Fake.
That has nothing to do with the infallibillity of the Pope. It's moronic to claim giving an optional permission is the same as commanding belief. How about if you actually learn the truth about what you are trying to debunk instead of these clown comments?
@@TheFreeThought Really? Are you suddenly that much of an expert? Lay it out for me then. Show me what I'm missing. Make the distinction for me among the types of errors a Pope can make and the ones that make the papacy itself unreliable. While we're at it, what's the difference between the Pope and the Papacy?
@@princegobi5992 It is. That's probably evidence that it is Divinely Instituted. There's a story about when the Nazi's surrounded the Vatican, a soldier told a bishop, "We will destroy your Church" and the bishop replied, "If we haven't done it in so many centuries what makes you think you'll be able to?"
This guy is out of his mind: the image has no MEDIUM : ink, pigment, or scorching, AND there's 3d info imbedded: you can't possibly render 3d info by hand and expect the conversion to represent anything human.WTH
@@Cross-Defenderjust because it look those graven images of a Jesus that the artist painted centuries later and never even met Jesus, means it’s Jesus?
@@mooshei8165 well even if the shroud isn't authentic I have absolute no problems with that, the christian faith is not dependent on the shroud but on the faithfull testimonies of the new testament scriptures. 👍🏻
I am afraid, Dan, that you have not done your research properly, sorry. The scientific data does in fact suggest that the C14 test was erroneous, Oxford admitted that the test was not done properly and Tucson admitted they only tested half of the shroud piece they were given, making their conclusion invalid.
Youre incorrect about your C-14 claim. You just glossed over all the problems with it. And there is zero evidence of an artistic method. Youre just saying stuff, and wrongly.
The Shroud of Turin is a Hoax 1)The shroud is all one garment depicting a man’s face. This is not how Christ was placed in the tomb. We see in the scriptures that it was tradition to bury the dead in two sets of garments including a head napkin. We see this in the case of Lazarus, John 11:44-"And he that was dead came forth, bound hand and foot with graveclothes: and his face was bound about with a napkin. Jesus saith unto them, Loose him, and let him go." We see this at the tomb of Christ, John 20:7-"And the napkin, that was about his head, not lying with the linen clothes, but wrapped together in a place by itself." 2)Christ would not have shamed Himself by having long hair as depicted on the shroud. 1st Corinthians 11:14-15, “Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him? But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her for a covering.” 3)Testing of the blood done on the shroud has revealed the “Y” chromosome. Jesus only had one earthly parent and that was Mary who could only give Him the “X” chromosome. Christ would not have the Y chromosome as it would have corrupted His divinity.
@@kevinmason3064 Bad observation. The napkin is in a Cathedral in Spain. It's known as "The Sudarium of Oviedo" It was used to cover His face as He was taken down from the cross. It's provenance is much older than the Shroud of Turin but it has the same blood type and the position of the blood marks matches up in a strange way that indicates the arm was blocking the "napkin" from fully encircling the head. so it had to be folded back. When this is done, the blood marks match the blood marks exactly on the Shroud of Turin.
1) The head napkin is now known as the Sudarium of Oviedo. It was used to cover his face to take Him down from the Cross. It was removed in the tomb and set aside when they covered Him with the linen that is now the Shroud. The blood stains match perfectly and the blood types are the same. Remember also that the women were coming back to finish the annointing when they encountered the empty tomb. 2) Long hair would have been down his back like a woman. Shoulder length hair would not be considered "long" in the first century. 3) Mary would have only had half the DNA. God could easily create the rest of the chromosomes just as He multiplied loaves and fishes, cured diseases or did any other miracles. To deny Christ His capabilities to generated Himself as a man is to deny His Manhood and Fully Man and Fully God. Jesus and the Catholic Church are right. John Calvin's bad bible reading is wrong.
@@treystevenson9872 Calvin game up with your wrong reading of Scripture before you did. And without the Catholic Church being established with His authority, there is no Bible. With no Bible, the Church the only knowledge of Christ at all would still be witness the Catholic Church bears as it was in the first 4 centuries before the Council of Rome first established a list of Inspired Writings. It was originally called "The Divine Library" and later nicknamed "The Bible" and it was the Catholics during the Carolingian Empire that added punctuation, divided the books into chapters and verses.
There are two other egregious errors in this video. That is not what anaphylactic shock is. You don’t go into anaphylactic shock by being beaten etc. Anaphylactic shock is a very specific type of shock caused by an intense allergic histamine release.
Second bilirubin is not an enzyme. It does not break down red blood cells. It is a breakdown product of the haem part of haemoglobin.
But the Catholic Church said so!
@@flemaster12 Where did the Catholic Church say so? Or are you just making crap up?
The first person to call it a forgery was a catholic bishop @flemaster12
“But me as an artist” bro!!! I’d like to know more about Dan the artist, can we see some of your work?
I want an ArtDan channel
You're a man child.
He is ignoring the study by Casabianca et al. 2019 which showed the 1988 C14 test is inconclusive
It doesn't show it's inconclusive
He literally did the research himself
In addition to evidence pointing toward the 13-14th centuries there's one piece of evidence that points clearly _away_ from the first century. The weave of the fabric is of a particular pattern. It's a pattern that does not appear to have been used until many centuries after the 1st century. However it is a type of weave that was commonly used in France during the middle ages. Archeologists have found burial shrouds and other fabrics from 1st century Judea and they don't resemble the shroud fabric.
Watch metatrons video on it he gives an unbiased info on the shroud
Provide links to scientific peer reviewed research articles to support your claim. Either that or keep it shut
You have it wrong research has shown that the cloth is 1st century and not middle ages. You got your weaving information wrong
The more compelling arguement is that the pollen proves that the shroud is in the right geophpacical location in the right time period. In totality, in my opinion its PROBABLY the burial wrappings of a Jewish man who lived in the right time frame to be Christ, who was subjected to Roman Crucificion and wore during that execution something consistent with a crown of thorns who also has what appears to be fluid deposition from a wound in the side. All of which seems to correspond to the death of Jesus of Nazareth account found in the gospels.
@@robschaller9061 Actual, real pollen research has proven nothing other than the fact that the shroud carries pollen from all over the world including North America, probably carried by visitors during all these centuries. Currently there is nothing, nothing at all, to support the notion that the shroud was an actual burial wrapping, that it came from Israel, or that it is about 2000 years old. The best apologetic position is "there is not 100% proof".
It interesting that such a holy artifact caught fire
Why does the shroud of Turin images has 3d info and the image in on the top Firebirds of the shroud
The "shroud" was miraculously discovered in the mid 14th century. The bishop of Troyes, near where the "shroud" was found, sent a letter to the then-pope Clement, explaining that a local artist had confessed to him (the bishop) that he had made the "shroud." Pope Clement, and every pope including the current pope, refuse to claim that the "shroud" is authentic. If even the catholic church, beloved of making extravagant claims for relics, refuses to claim this "shroud" as authentic, how could anyone even consider the claim?
Because of the evidence. No matter what, if it's a hoax, you have to admit it's very elaborate.
And why exactly did this "forger" confess immediately? Went through all that extraordinarily ellaborate trouble, only to trash it. Seems awfully convenient. Overzealous, gloryseeking "hoax hunters" exist. Even Bishops...
"What are the chances it's real anyway - I'll just call it a day and say that I, in my great alertness sniffed out a hoaxer. Look at me, oh Pope."
(Note that if christianity is true, Satan literally exists.)
Just speculations with bias.
Redditor
By the way, why did those involved with the carbon dating refuse to hand over their data for decades before someone forced their hands via the freedom if information act?
Why would scientists wish to hide their process and results used to date the shroud? You'd think they would happily share it with the world.
but they did hand it over, so what's your point?
but did they though? Did they refuse? You realize those scientists are under no legal authority of the FOIA, right? FOIA is for government, not scientists..
@@rickelmonoggin when you spend over 20 years keeping your methodology shielded from scrutiny it creates doubt about its authenticity.
@@paulpierce2051 so you're a conspiracy theorist
80% of all conspiracys turn out to be true. The shroud is fake.
You are exactly right about the "body being disportionate" (2:00), because that's one of the main things that made me question it. I believe the figure is over 6 foot, like 6'2" to 6'4".
Would the body not be disproportionate after sustained torture? Limbs would be torn out of sockets, and body parts would be twisted into unnatural positions.
The Gospels themselves record that Christ was unrecognisable when he was brought down from the cross.
Dan, you are clueless about what you are talking about. The 1988 tests were done on cotton edge pieces.. The shroud is linen, and contains micro precise imagining.
Exactly
Wrong
@@flemaster12 you have no idea of what you are talking about.
@@gateway6827 I do
False actually. The theory thereby cotton was intertwined with linen later has been proven a concoction.
I recall there is also no historical mention of the shroud before the 14th Century. The first mention is exactly the time the Carbon 14 data suggested it was created. The data was taken by three different labs using different pieces about 1” square of the cloth.
There are mentions of objects that could be the shroud, but by different names obviously. The carbon dating sample was cut from a single corner and was divided into three parts, then sent to three different laboratories.
@@seulanen576 totally - including early gospels themselves if they are to be believed, describing burial cloths left after 'resurrection' and, holy Roman empire accounts referencing similar-sounding relics.
"38 Later, Joseph of Arimathea asked Pilate for the body of Jesus. Now Joseph was a disciple of Jesus, but secretly because he feared the Jewish leaders. With Pilate’s permission, he came and took the body away. 39He was accompanied by Nicodemus, the man who earlier had visited Jesus at night. Nicodemus brought a mixture of myrrh and aloes, about seventy-five pounds. e 40Taking Jesus’ body, the two of them wrapped it, with the spices, in strips of linen. This was in accordance with Jewish burial customs."
@@seulanen576 Yep. And it was taken from area of the shroud that had been recsued from a fire and the nuns wove in linen from their time frame.
Pollen experts have looked at the shroud and they can with 100% certainty place the shroud in the area surrounding and including Jerusalem at the right time period based on the various pollen CURRENTLY in the shroud. Certain species are ONLY found in that area of Israel and some of them found are extinct and specific to that time period. YOu can argue that its not Jesus but just a jewish man who happened to be crucified by the romans and had wounds consistent with Judean thorn wounds on the head.
What you cant argue and is not supported is that the shroud was made in the late 1300s. No one from that time period, not a single human being from that time period would have know about Pollen and its ability to tell you where linens came from and roughly when.
You say there are multiple different carbon 14 analyses, trying to make it sound like loads of tests were done, but do you know that in fact there was only one sample taken, and that recent tests conducted more recently with new technology put the date of the Shroud within the ambit of the first century? Also, the total lack of vanillin shows the cloth must be over 1,000 years old. It's known that the shroud was damaged and then repaired, so where are the repair patches? The story of how Ray Rogers, director of the STURP, came to agree that the sample was taken from a repair patch is interesting in itself.
Regarding modesty, if it was the intention of the artist to do that, he would have had Jesus wearing a loincloth or something. The hands cover the nether regions because he is arched forward. I'm lying on my sofa now, even without arching forward it's quite easy to cover that part, and I don't have exceptionally long arms.
Also you can do the experiment of painting your face with something, lay on your back and cover your face with a piece of fabric, then see the results. Spoiler alert, it doesn't look like that. It looks more like... Google "head texture". Yeah, more like that
There was separation between the body and the cloth when the image was created. It is not a contact image.
I did the experiments you are referring too. I will give you the video link so you can see what it looks like.
This was done with a life cast body same height as the man in the Shroud Image. You will learn alot fast.
ruclips.net/video/uDRCVLOv1-w/видео.html
That's not how it happened though. The image was formed from the linen being 3-4 centimeters from the body itself.
@@zephyr-117sdropzone8 Exactly right. Shroud has accurate depth info. To create accurate depth info there must be separation between the object and the film plate. Meaning the body could NOT have been touching the cloth during the image process. Ive spent the last month analyzing hundreds of images for depth info on a 3D brightness map software program that plots the lights and darks of an image on a x y z axis.
Shroud has accurate depth info . Extremely good. Even at max gain. Painting and photos and man made images do not, unless they know in advance how the software analyzes an image and then uses it as "quality control" to make an image and then present it and say "See we debunked the 3D image on the Shroud theory"
This is what skeptics have been reduced to.
@@GoodShepherdFilms3333 Correct. If the face was directly contacted to the Shroud, then absolutely, it's fake, as the image would show up with the face wide in the middle, then the sides of the head stretched diagonally upward on both sides of the face. But that isn't how the body was positioned.
Frankly, I'll never accept any report that debunks the Shroud. There's too much at stake for globalists and anyone anti-Christian. If this thing is 1st century and comes from Jesus, do you know what would happen? Economy collapses all over the world. People leaving gambling, porn, money-making schemes, etc. Other religions mostly die off, especially Islam, Hinduism, etc. Judaism doesn't, but I'd assume they finally realize their messiah came, so Christianity and Judaism will merge like how was always intended. But the point is, there would be no room left to deny Jesus anymore. That would terrify the elite and greedy bastards trying to control the world.
@@GoodShepherdFilms3333 Source: Trust me broseph
*Anatomy*
The biggest problem is the position of the eyes. They are too close to the top of the head. Also the fingers are long. Both of these were common features in art of the (1300s?).
The person is European, probably from the Italian peninsula
Bending the back a little allows the hands to reach the groin. But why would a corpse be bent like that? It seems the corpse is represented as bent in order to cover the groin.
Am I the only one that thinks the image on shroud looks 65 instead of 33.
@@susannah1066 I didn’t notice. But supposedly the guy was walking around all the time , so his skin could have been weather-worn.
I think the suggestion is that he wasn’t lying flat as he would have entered rigor mortis in the position he died in on the cross. I don’t know anything about the eyes or fingers though
@@caidenhodges9103 It’s not the bending of the legs, but of the back that make putting one’s hands over one’s groin possible. The position on the cross might require bending the legs, but the back?
Look at the distance from the top of your own forehead to the middle of your eyes.
It is about the same distance as from the middle of your eyes to your chin.
Now look at the Shroud. The eyes on “Jesus” are much closer to the top of his head than to his chin. That was a popular art style.
@@scienceexplains302 I’m not of the opinion it’s authentic. But if you died while hanging from your hands you would necessarily slump forward leading your back to bend. I could be mistaken though
So this forgerer painted on animal blood? Yet no brush marks or any sign of directionality are to be found on the shroud. Did he spray it on through a straw? Mighty good result if he did?
Ik the forgerer theory is wild
are there brush marks on every painting? go look at a medieval painting up close and tell me if you can see brush marks
@@rickelmonoggin mate - the image is proven BURNED into the fabric by radiation which emanated from the inside out. No paint involved. The blood, was stained into the proven, first century AD circa linen weave pattern on the cloth, prior to the less than 1mm singing from the radiation - and of a human, RH factor type - still more common in the middle east.
That's the science - whatever you 'believe' about who the guy was. I enjoy the time travellor from another universe theory personally, that's pretty feasible. But maybe he was 'enlightened', a being from another dimension - who the hell can say.
He certainly had some influence - there aren't many guys with the same, recorded 'overkill' death - especially the thorn 'crown'.
Newer images have revealed the image also has Jewish prayer tefillin and an undergarment visible. The early first century-minted Roman/Judean eye coins placed to keep them closed after rigor mortis - are of some interest too?
Opening the mind to potential new experiences of 'Science' findings and reviewing them more critically, seems pretty vital if entering any debate without bias.
So remake an identical replica to show how people from the thirteenth century artistically made it.
The shroud is a fascinating medieval artifact, as you say a work of art. I say that as a Christian who believes absolutely the crucifixion and bodily resurrection of Christ.
What BS. If you really are dumb enough to believe the Shroud is a medieval fake, then you must explain how whoever fabricated it must have:
1. Known the precise methods of crucifixion in the first century.
2. Be proficient enough in over 100 scientific disciplines and also collectively outweigh the intelligence of the people who performed hundreds and hundreds of tests on the Shroud and who are not finding any indications of a forgery.
3. Possessed the medical knowledge of a modern expert surgeon.
4. Utilized an art process unknown to any great master, never duplicated before or since.
5. Be able to foresee and approximate principles of photographic negativity that would not be discovered for centuries.
6. Imported a piece of old cloth of Middle Eastern manufacture.
7. Used a coloring agent which would be unaffected by intense heat.
8. Be able to incorporate in his work details (that have only recently been discovered), that the human eye cannot see and that are visible only with the most advanced computer-scanning devices.
9. Be able to reproduce flawlessly, on a nearly flat linen surface, in a single color, undistorted 3-D characteristics of a human body in a 'negative format' on the tops of the threads, while conversely showing the 'blood' as positive and soaking all the way through.
10. Get somewhere the blood of a tortured man and apply it before creating the image.
11. Get limestone from Jerusalem, and pollen particles from the middle east, in special from plants with thorns, that flourish only between March and April.
That conclusion was actually rejected outright by the 1978 STURP team.
And yet, until someone comes up with a convincing explanation as to how the image formed, the case is open.
How does that make the case still open?
What gets me about this is that it is not a shroud. A shroud is a bolt of cloth wrapped AROUND a corpse, the way mummies are wrapped (but obviously not as tight).
A shroud has several purposes. It prevents insect infestation. It holds back the reek of a rotting body. It prevents animals for nibbling on it. And as the body begins to putrefy and leaks liquids, a proper shroud absorbs them and keep them contained. For all these reasons, a shroud had to cover all the body, NO exposed skin.
If an image was transposed to the cloth that was wrapped around, it would show itself in a series of partial images, easy to miss as just random stains. This cloth was draped lengthwise like a primitive photographic plate.
In practice, the "shroud" of Turin would be open along both sides. In other words, this the tablecloth of Turin.
Yeah, that’s not how it was done in Judea. The cloth was wrapped around from head to toe, then another cloth was wrapped around the head. Some jewish sects still practice this in Israel right now.
@@paulpierce2051 Exactly - it get's you sometimes, how people only apply their own, limited knowledge based in 'now' and simple, basic understandings of 'outdated science facts'.
@@paulpierce2051 OMG is that true? Where do you find that source?
Wow! Amazingly twisted perfectly crafted words to make your point of it being a forgery. You just casually ignore the facts of it being actual DNA . And, the fact that it is a 3d image. How can you possibly refute these facts?
Why can't it just be the burial shroud of some other guy? Why do you think it's definitely of Jesus?
The up loader states and I quote "the fingers are grotesquely long" The fingers are exactly the same length as mine. I own a museum quality replica of the Shroud, $2,000. Same dimensions as the original. Also this can be verified as being true by going to shroud scope. They have measuring tools extremely accurate. Go ahead measure the fingers. They are forensically accurate. Measure any part of the anatomy yourself. All forensically accurate (with exception of right elbow)
The reason the fingers appear as being long is because the metacarpal bones are visible. This is evidence that the information that created the image on the Shroud came from the inside of the body in the Shroud, as in how a X ray image is created.
Also the body we see on the Shroud image is NOT lying flat. The upper torso is leaning forward and that is why hands are in the position they are in. Upper torso is leaning forward at the same angle of the head board in the Garden Tomb. Body of Jesus was not lying flat in the tomb.
If the body was lying flat the hands would be up further. Up-loader is simply not understanding the position of the body.
If he would have run tests he would know what he is saying is wrong.
The body image of the Shroud is forensically accurate to a man 5' 11" about 175lbs
The only part of the body that is not forensically accurate is measuring the right elbow to the fingers. It is longer than the other. That elbow is dislocated as is right shoulder. Further dislocated by hanging from the cross.
The dislocation of elbow and shoulder is Most likely as a result of Jesus falling on the way up the hill as is recorded in the Gospels . Also it states in scripture "my bones are all out of joint" Meaning dislocated.
So the dislocated elbow and shoulder is in agreement with the Bible. Also jaw is dislocated and the nose is dislocated and possibly the left knee that is flexed inward on image, and has multiple scratches and appears damaged,
Anyways the up-loader is in disagreement with no less than 7 forensic pathologists and medical examiners.
Who all echo the same statement "The authenticity of the Shroud from the point of view of anatomy and physiology is a scientific fact'
Those are the forensic facts of the case and they are indisputable.
My friend athiests and scientists try to cover up anything because they are too scared for the truth. Keep up the good work!!! I would love to keep in contact with you on your news with the shroud. I guess I really want to know why the shroud hasn’t been on the worldwide news to be authentic
Respectfully, If I paid two thousand dollars for something I was convinced was authentic, I'd be very reluctant to consider any evidence however compelling that it was not authentic because it would suggest I was duped and taken in by a scam. That's a very hard thing to accept. People wrongly equate the authenticity of this artifact with their personal faith. This is the false logic of blind faith. A person can reject the shroud as a fake and still embrace the principles of Christianity without contradiction.
@@michaelmckinney7240 imagine following the sheep of this satanic world
Listen up everybody.
The old man at the start of the video was basically presenting some scientific findings - but he is ultimately like a scared dog.
He does not want to admit that he BELIEVES that the image captured on the shroud is actually YAHWEH in the flesh - in the form of his son who is also known as Jesus Christ.
That would make him sound crazy as the Catholic Church makes NO such claims about the shroud of Turin.
Its always kept on display as a focal point for the wider world and also as a noted religious artififact in the west.
This is the official Catholic position on the shroud of Turin.
@@goodtoGoNow1956 There's another aspect to this controversy that's not so obvious. There are many who don't want to hear any evidence that points to the shroud being a forgery and the catholic church is first among them. I believe the catholic laity are also strongly inclined to adopt the churches position and discount any credible evidence contradicting their acceptance by faith that the shroud is genuine. This number comes to millions. These are the same millions who believe that a real Garden of Eden existed, a real Noah's Ark existed, and they also believe every biblical fable found in scriptures. If iron clad proof was presented to them, they still wouldn't change their minds.
If the cloth were laying over a body there would be image distortion on the projection. You're not going to get a flat face from a rounded cloth....the face would looks disproportioned.
The evidence and research of the shroud is still inconclusive and truth is that we won't know anything further with certainty until the church of Turin allows modern scientists to conduct more extensive research on the shroud which might never happen.
-However if you claim to be an artist yourself, wouldn't you find this theory on a forgery just utterly wild ?
The underlying truth is that even if this is a forgery, then this is a true masterpiece way ahead of times for a late medieval times timeframe which is even difficult to recreate in modern times. Just out of all the coincidences that need to be in place for this to be a forgery, one that stands out to me is the placement of the nails in his wrists rather than palms. If you search up medieval paintings or even throughout more modern history of the crucifixion all of these works of art show nails and wounds exactly at his palms rather than wrists like it does in the shroud. It is not until recent decades that it has been scientifically proven the at the nails had to logically be at the wrist to be able to carry the weight of a crucified adult. But logically if you are a forger back in the time of the medieval ages trying to make money out of this forgery you'd probably base your forgery on the accepted facts back at that time. Even If you look at all of Giotto's paintings who is said to be the artist behind the shroud they all depict the nails and wounds on the palms rather than wrists and his level of detail and artistic talent is way behind this hyper realistic image and it gets worse with the artistic talent of the average medieval era artworks.
Throughout this video you also fail to mention all the more recent research that is against and in favor of the shrouds authenticity, such as the 2018 forensic examination of blood patterns in the shroud or the 2022 x ray dating of the shroud.
But going back to the forgery here's a list of all the things that the forger must have gotten right to create such masterpiece:
1) The forger first somehow painted the bloodstains before he painted the image.
2) The forger integrated forensic qualities that would be known in the 19th century.
3) The forger painted the blood flows with genuine AB - blood that he had spiked with excessive amounts of bilirubin since the forger knew that severe scourging with a Roman flagrum would cause erythrocyte hemolysis and jaundice.
4) The forger plotted the scourge marks on the body of the man on the shroud to be consistent with forensic examination with two scourges of the same height.
5) The forger duplicated abrasion and compression marks on the scourge wounds of the shoulders to suggest to 20th century examiners that the man on the shroud had carried heavy weight following the scourging.
6) The forger as the genuis he is, illustrated the nails of the crucifixiction accurately through the wrists instead of the palms as in all other conventional medieval representations.
7) The forger salted the linen with pollen of plants indigenous only to the environment of Judea in anticipation of 20th century palynological analysis, which found traces of the DNA of these plants in the shroud.
8) The forger somehow managed to paint an anatomical and photographic human image in a photographic negative manner centuries before photography.
9) The forger painted the image with some unkwon medium using a technique, 30-40ft away in order to discern the shadowy image as he continued painting.
10) The forger was clever enough to depict an adult with an unplaited ponytail, sidelocks and a beard consistent with a jewish male of the 1st century.
11)The forger thought of such minuscule details such as incorporating dirt from the feet of the man on the shroud consistent with the limestone of the environment of Jerusalem.
12) The forger was such an expert in 20th century biochemistry, medicine, forensics, pathology, anatomy, botany and specially photography and 3D computer analysis, that he has folied the attempts of modern science. His artistic technique clearly triumphs over the likes of Da Vinci and Michelangelo.
Or maybe just maybe is this the authentic burial shroud of Jesus?
There are so much things that have be just right for this to be an authentic forgery, that the only logical explanation that I have is that the forger was somehow a time traveler. Also is important to ask ourselves if this is a artwork from medieval times why don't we see more of this type of artwork from this age apart of the shroud and the sudarium? If the forger had this level of talent for a medieval artist arguably better than the likes of Michelangelo and Da Vinci at a time where perspective in artwork didn't even exist, then why on earth is this artist not known or mysterious and not one of the greatest artistic genius in human history ?
Even a simple google search corroborates some of my points:
-In the Middle Ages, art was not created to be realistic and it tended to be 2D. The figures that were portrayed were often important religious scenes. This indicates that symbolism was more significant than a realistic image in this period.
The pollen was not exclusive to Palestine at all. The dust was not exclusive to Jerusalem either. Pigment HAS been found on the shroud. Linen never absorbs pigment. The fingers as represented are way too long. Etc. Sorry, you haven't proven anything.
@@sarahahmed113 Your response is highly inadequate...Care to elaborate?
By elaborate I mean an in-depth rebuttal to all the bullet points of the OP
@@sarahahmed113 Pssst. No pigment was ever found on the cloth. Also, the only coloring on it was on the patches used to match the original cloth when it was repaired. It has been dated with new methods NOT using patch areas and it is consistent with the time period it should be from to be authentic. The only thing that exists in the whole world like this cloth, is this cloth. Do the math.
3) this is simply untrue. Just a case of shroudies getting carried away.
6) definitely untrue. There are only 4 surviving examples of Roman crucifixion. None of them have woulds through the hands or wrists and they go through the ankle in a way different from the shroud.
7) again, this is shroudie nonsense. They cannot identify pollen from different parts of the world like this.
8) it isn't anatomically correct. The eyes are significantly too high to be in proportion. Look at every attempt to draw an accurate version from the shroud, they move the eyes down.
10) where is the evidence for how Jewish people did their hair in the 1st century AD?
11) limestone again has been discredited. It actually has more in common with limestone found in France than Judea.
12) the church simply haven't allowed people to study it enough to claim that is has foiled modern science. A team given a week in the 1980s isn't enough.
All they have is the idea that it can't be recreated. Scientists cannot recreate the sound of a Stradivarius violin either and they have many more of them to study.
Geniuses have always existed. It just so turns out that this genius didn't know how to do eyes properly.
how was the image on the Shroud made ?
They can't recreate it
@Steven Wright
Not true
I did.
I posted my results on RUclips
I made a video on how the Shroud was made
You tell me, how was it made?
@@jimmyhalperin7792 nah..your job looked and captured nothing close to the depth and perspective contained in the shroud.
Florentine artists: We can work with this. Hey, dude right next to me. People were named Lentulus in the first century, right?
Also, I never noticed the fingers till now
Dan, how do you explain the 3D properties contained in the Shroud of Turin? That no medieval forger could produce. That no scientist can explain or duplicate. That couldn't be seen until the 1970's when the technology was first developed to view it.
And these are the “experts” the world listens too. Dan you have been inaccurate in so many things and it is remarkable that you still have a channel
I'm always glad to be corrected where I make errors. Please demonstrate where I've been wrong.
What is the media used to create the image on the Shroud?
Many people believe the Shroud is a painting or some kind of statue with pigment and pressed against the linen. But in any case a skeptic image theory involves adding some kind of material to the cloth when that was not the case .
Coloring on the Shroud is due to a re arrangement of the electron bonding of the carbon atoms from single electron bond to double bond. We have a separate video going over that aspect of the image discussion. Be glad to give you the link if interested.
Let me try and explain that in simple terms. I have a video that explains it better but I do not want to leave links on a comment section that is not from my channel
But anyways. Ok. Here goes. The electrons that make up the carbon atoms in the linen were changed. When that is done it changes the way the linen absorbed and reflected light.
The only way we have done this that matches the Shroud coloring is with an argon fluoride laser aimed at a fibril in the UV spectrum with a short burst at one forty billionth of a second.
the image is almost like a microscopic singe
It only penetrates into the fiber one or 2 micrometers. 100 times thinner than a piece of hair.
If you want a link request it.
@@GoodShepherdFilms3333 Would love to see a link!
A bas-relief and tempera painting. Before the paint, the artist put the linen on the bas-relief, a bit wet and let it dry a bit to have the weak penetration. Then, the Shroud artist painted in tempera the areas where the linen was supposed to come into contact with the supposed body so that a negative image resulted (more logical than if he had painted the hollows and therefore less identifiable as a fake). A vermilion tint based on mercury sulphide was then used to represent the bloodstains in the nailed places.
@@revedargent3467 I read Walter McCrone's book on his findings in microscopy, which indicated that there was red vermillion and red ochre on the shroud. Shroud apologists originally said there was no paint found anywhere... and then they had to admit that there was in fact paint, but it came from other shrouds, as people were permitted to rub these shrouds against the Shroud of Turin. I can't imagine how we would only have two colors if this is the case. I just gave up studying the Shroud at that point, because the goal posts always move.
@@mjt532 it’s ok Good Shepherd Films Channel
LOL ! 5:44 Quote: "The preponderance of evidence has long supported, and continues to support, the conclusion that the Shroud is an artistic production of the late 13th to 14th centuries."
It is blatantly false claim the the Shroud dates to the 13th or 14th century "based on artistic considerations." Nothing could be further from the truth. Artists in the middle ages always portrayed Jesus with nails through the palms of his hands. However, the images on the Shroud show the nail wound in the wrist. What art history does for the Shroud is to prove that it was extant in the sixth century based on the congruence of the facial features of Jesus found on sixth century icons and coins with the facial features of the image on the Shroud.
Funny how our narrator fails to mention the neutron absorption hypothesis and that this idea has supporting evidence.
Their is currently a one million dollar prize offer to anyone who can acurrately reproduce the Shroud's images. Perhaps Mr. McClellan would like to give it a try, since he is so sure that the images can be reproduced.
Dan talks about "propotionality" without considering the facts that this corpse was in a state of rigor mortis and that the victims arms were dislocated. His observation about "long fingers" fails to understand that skeletal features are seen on the Shroud's images and that what he is viewing are the metacarpal bones.
Few problems with the above, the bible doesn't actually tell us how Jesus was suspended on the cross. Nailing wasn't the primary way it was done during his time contrary to popular belief. Usually if nailed, they were also tied first since nailing alone would not hold people onto the cross and would simply be a method of torture. There is no basis for where the nails would be other than a somewhat recent theory that the wrists might work better than the hands, but neither really work on their own.
“Contrary to popular representations of Jesus’s crucifixion, it was far more common (and more practical) for Romans to tie the victim’s wrists to the crossbeam with ropes. Nailing through the palms would have been useless as a means of fixing a person to the cross, as the structure of muscle and bone is too fragile to support the body’s weight." (The Cross: History, Art, and Controversy, Robin M. Jensen, p.10)
Besides that, the image on the shroud could only make sense if the cloth itself was entirely flat when made. If it was wrapped in any way onto a body, It would appear distorted in expected ways no matter how the image would have been made. For instance, if we are going by the popular idea that this image was created by an intense form of light when Jesus resurrected, if the light is projecting out from his body it would still cause the kind of distortions you would expect if the cloth was not totally flat. Even more problematic for this idea is there's a backside also (which of course the back and front don't match up, a problem commented on for centuries). So in the above scenario, you would have to account for how exactly the image 2d image (with 3d qualities) without the distortion of not being flat (IE wrapped around a body, or placed over it).
@@Eye_of_Horusalso, the feet are not in line with all 4 examples of known crucifixion. The back of the heel was nailed adjacent to the wood, this has it going through the front.
Real or not doesn't really matter. I just want to know how the image got on the shroud. It makes no sense.
A bas-relief and tempera painting. Before the paint, the artist put the linen on the bas-relief, a bit wet and let it dry a bit to have the weak penetration. Then, the Shroud artist painted in tempera the areas where the linen was supposed to come into contact with the supposed body so that a negative image resulted (more logical than if he had painted the hollows and therefore less identifiable as a fake). A vermilion tint based on mercury sulphide was then used to represent the bloodstains in the nailed places.
@@revedargent3467 no traces of paint where ever found tho.
@@Twist_UAP In his Last Judgment of the Shroud of Turin, Chicago scientist Walter McCrone details 20 years of research on it. His conclusions are based on microscopic examination of 22 samples of fibers and particles taken from different places in the shroud. He concludes that the image was obtained from red ocher and a ferrous pigment. The Shroud artist painted in tempera the areas where the linen was supposed to come into contact with the supposed body so that a negative image resulted (more logical than if he had painted the hollows and therefore less identifiable as a fake). A vermilion tint based on mercury sulphide was then used to represent the bloodstains in the nailed places. Sindonologists speak well of posterior paint, added, or put forward some other ad hoc hypotheses but which do not come to undermine the credibility of the pigments discovered. Walter McCorne is also at the head of the McCorne laboratory specialized in the analysis of works of art and the discovery of forgeries, a laboratory which the partisans of authenticity hoped at the base that it supports their belief but who backtracked on seeing the results, as they already did for the 1988 carbon dating.
@Rêve D'Argent oh trust me. I am not convinced the image is real mostly because the face is in 2d, which makes no sense. However, Ik find it interesting how the image ever got onto the shroud. ruclips.net/video/tAQQhBnCVQs/видео.html
Here is a great video about it.
@@Twist_UAP i totally agree with the problem of dimension, less with the video linked because its sources are only sindonologist's ones. That's why it mostly repeat their speech even if it's not scientificaly accurate.
Confirmation bias and "dogma" can skew both ways. Your points are not definitive enough to conclude anything contrary without clear bias. To act as if the bias can only come from one side is disingenuous. Also, you left a lot out. For example, they bound his face to keep his mouth closed and they bound his body - couldn't that have kept his elbows in a certain position? The carbon dating has issues of course but also the nuns patched it and the dating has been different depending on the fabric samples taken... you picked what you wanted and omitted what you didn't and then called him bias. not very convincing even to someone who just heard of the shroud.
Why is it so hard for people to accept it as an icon, even though it probably was intended by the “artist” to be fraud?
I always say that if you were both famous and holy in the Middle Ages your corpse was in for it. So while if someone says they have Saint Paul’s pinkie finger, they don’t, if a church says it has Francis of Assisi’s femur it just might.
You cannot hide paint from high powered microscopes. If it was painted you would see it. When the Shroud of Turin Research went to Turin Italy they were expecting to find a painting. In fact they did research for 6 months prior gathering a list of every paint, pigment and dye ever used in history. They were extremely surprised to discover it was not a painting.
They thought they would debunk it as a painting in the first hour of examination. That is the first thing they did. The looked at the Shroud fibers with high powered microscopes. To their surprise they found NOTHING on the colored fibers . coloring is a result of a re arrangement of the electron bonding of the carbon atoms that made up the linen.
From single electron bond to double bond. It took them nearly 3 years to figure that out. It is not the result of adding material to the linen
Because the C14 Carbon dating test was proven to be inaccurate.
@@GoodShepherdFilms3333 I don't think they did look at the Shroud through high powered microscopes. Of course it rather depends what you call high powered, but the STuRP team do not mention anything more powerful that x50. As the powder observed by Walter McCrone is described as "sub-micron" it would not have been visible at that magnification. Later studies of the sticky tape slides by Eugenia Nitowski and Joseph Kohlbeck, at x300 to x600, show particles clearly.
People love these relics, but as a believer in Yeshua, these things are always pushed by catholics as something else to focus on other than walking in holiness. People want all this evidence for the Biblical account and we don't need it. Plenty of historical evidence proves the Bible, this shroud is a distraction.
Dan, perhaps you could explain the conclusions of the 1978 STURP team, who found that there were paints or dyes on the shroud and that it was not a work of art?
You repeatedly use the word 'artistic' despite the fact that this was rejected outright by the STURP team. So on precisely what basis do you claim that the preponderance of evidence supports exactly the opposite conclusion?
Academic researchers have also questioned, challenged and even called for the 1988 results to be retracted, including one of the leading scientists on the STURP team.
Incidentally, you are quite capable of finding out the speaker's name. It is incredibly rude, disrespectful, and disingenuous of you to refer to them as 'this individual' as if it would somehow be beneath you to find out who they are.
Sorry, this should be 'no paints or dyes on the shroud'...
Why does this discussion ever get to the question of whether there were paints or dyes on the shroud, rather than establishing that this shroud was not the product of some other, ancient, wrapped-up, corpse? How does anybody get past proving that anybody even named Jesus was ever in contact with this fabric, rather than some completely reandom, unrelated guy named Jerome, Esdras, or Barbelo?
The skeptic's "rational" position: a medieval artist outsmarted 21st century scientists after 50 years of rigorous research.
Just curious do you deny that there is no way to reproduce the image with the same properties? They pfobably would have positioned the hands in that way. The fingers are not long you are looking at an xray where you would see the bones up into the hand.
He should understand 'foreshortening' and depth perception better, as an 'artist'?
@@clairew2184 I'm confused... how would foreshortening ever occur from an object making an impression of itself by contact with another object? Foreshortening is a phenomenon to do with perspective (e.g. a person's hand appearing noticeably larger than their body because it is significantly closer to a camera). There can't be any forced perspective of an object on a surface where the marking is created BY the object itself. If there was ever a body under the shroud, the marks you are seeing are exactly the dimensions of that body.
Try to cover your hand in paint and rest it on a piece of paper - you won't be able to make any "foreshortening" occur (without moving either your paper or your hand). Your printed hand will be, at MOST, exactly the same size as your actual hand.
You are also to me are disrespectful towards Barrie Swartz the founder of The Shroud Of Turin website and scientific photographer of the STURP team of 1978. This is not some wild eyed lunatic screaming the sky is falling! He is a measured and careful man who holds to his Jewish faith but acknowledges that there is no natural explanation for the image on the shroud. His website is the most extensive on the topic and for that I am grateful. If you are going to use the source then you must credit to who it comes from.This is where academic honesty comes into play. Maybe you don’t want people to research and find contradictions to what you are saying
The hands were placed over the genitals for reasons of modesty? What utter guff. Why wouldn't the artist have simply depicted the body wearing a loin cloth as every painting of his alleged era did?
I love the smug way the sceptics say there have been a number of theories put forward as to how it was faked yet not one has come close after decades of study and experimentation.
How about the biological/anatomical issues? How would a medieval forgery know that nails were hammered through the wrists rather than the palm of the hand. Every painting of that era depicts the nails driven through the hands.
The same can be said of the cap of thorns as opposed to the oft depicted wreath.
The nonsense about the anatomical impossibility of hands reaching down to cover the genitals has also been explained. The body was bent at the knees and raised up slightly at the upper back and head due to rigamortis.
The shroud has three dimensionality.
The shroud image us an actual negative.
What forgerer would know how a man was flogged all over his body rather than just the back as depicted in most paintings?
I could go on but there smug sceptics are pathetic. They are either ignorant or disingenuous. When are the brilliant scientists of our modern world going to find a way to replicate what a medieval conman knocked up by himself centuries ago?
LOVED IT!..💦💦..BEST COMMENT AWARD goes to???.. Mark.🏆🏆🎖🎖🥇🥇
You literally just proved to all of us you have no idea what you are talking about, and ignored the video. Also the basic fact that they wouldn't have used that much cloth on a prisoner for burial....
The time spent writing that could have been better spent lying on the floor and seeing if your arms naturally reach your genitals. Natural, as in your shoulders flat, arm weight engaged, accounting for the torso slope. Your arms would need to be longer for that position, particularly if you died with them outstretched.
The nail holes don't go through the wrist. It's hard to see but measuring proportions and where the exit wounds would be on the back shows they appear to be farther down
@@jenna2431I laid on my back and easily made the same position as the shroud shows, hands covering my groin. This point about the hands covering the groin make no sense to me.
On the one hand skeptics would like us to believe it was staged with a model or a cadaver, but on the other hand is anatomically incorrect. Which is it? And why do I easily assume the same position myself?
Carbon 14 is not a good analysis it’s used as a rubber ruler
People would believe anything.
blah blah blah......... all comments and no evidence. All that you just commented on your video has been scientifically proven by world renowned scientists. Do you even have a background of science and archaelogy. Seriously, if you want to prove something bring us the evidencEs, cause we do not care about your opinions. If I wanted some opinions I would have watched the simpsons LOL
Hey Dan, I want to believe its a hoax. But some things just dont line up. First the dates are just wishy washy. And within those ranges. There simply isnt an artist or group of artists, who are making similar fakes. Most illustraitions of any image back then, relied so much on hatching. And their knowledge of form wasnt that developed either. Do you have a specify artist or similar images i mind that are similar to the shroud?
Exactly there is non, non other arguably "artistic creation" of that time late medieval period apart of the shroud of turin and the sudarium of oviedo show such a precise technique and minuscule details. I invite you to look at my recent comment in this video where I go more in depth on it, you can see it by sorting by newest first
I think the guy in the video is Barrie schwortz
Who is one of the most credible, well-informed, up to date sources of evidence. He was an athiest and sceptic when he started as the first science team's photographer. He has examined and spent much time with the shroud - no doubt it was formed by processes involving light radiation, which we still don't understand the Science behind.
Why would an artist draw an image of Jesus that is "wildly disproportionate"?
If they weren’t trained in anatomy then it’s quite likely that their work would be disproportionate. When you look at art through history it is easy to distinguish an artist that studied anatomy from one who didn’t.
@@mrq6270 You don't need a vet degree to distinguish a horse from a cow. Likewise, you don't need a course in anatomy to draw a properly proportioned image of a human being.
@@oldschoolsaint that is true. Nevertheless, an artist who is trained in anatomy will recognize when the proportions of a human figure are off. And won’t accept a disproportionate depiction, unless the distortion is deliberate. It just looks awkward.
Studying anatomy allows the artist to create, and pose a figure from imagination, and get it right. As you point out, the untrained artist will depend entirely on observation. And if you look at a lot of art then you will see that they often don’t get it right.
As for the shroud, Dan is quite right about the hands. Even though the image is not particularly clear, he is correct that the placement of the hands doesn’t work unless the figure had really unusual arms. And those fingers really seem to belong to E.T.
Why isn't it proportionate then? Was Jesus some kind of long-armed, long-fingered human with eyeballs in the middle of his forehead? @oldschoolsaint
Sorry, You sound intelligent and well read but your facts and not correct. Ray Rogers is not a high school chemistry student. He tested and concluded that the parts of the shroud that they tested were the worst areas to test and the results give a tainted and fuzzy date due to contamination. Go back to the drawing board and really and honestly investigate his and other PHDs findings on the shrouds authenticity. If you are academically and intellectual honest you can only come to one conclusion and that is the man in the shroud is either Jesus Christ or someone who was tortured like Him. Both scenarios would be supernatural and miraculous. Readers of this comment don’t be afraid of this gentleman’s intellect he is only asserting what he doesn’t really know. Do your own due diligence and you will find the shroud of Turin to be exactly what I have stated. Then it is your decision to decide option one or two. If you choose two that’s okay but know that you still have to deal with Jesus Christ as Lord and Christ. Deal with it now or later but one day you will have to face the reality that Jesus is both Lord and Christ
metatron just did an amazing video about this subject. its way better then most videos on this subject.
Yeah, I saw it. I thought he did a really good job. Considering he is not a Shroud Researcher he knows alot details about the Shroud very few people know. I was very surprised. Excellent presentation. Fact based, impartial, thorough
It is false and only distributes lies by omission. Carbon dating is the first one in this clip. It has been debunked 17 years ago that the carbon dating should be repeated.
metatron just repeat the narrativ of his sindonologist's sources. There isn't a lot of science in his video on the shroud.
@@revedargent3467 So where are your sources that are revealing counter evidences to this?
@@ophanimangel3143 The main argument against authenticity and that could be enough on its own: the dimensions are not correct. The VP-8 only found 3D info of a bas-relief (about 3cm deep) and not of a whole body. It is a second operation, made from these results, which recreated a body with a program to add the correct dimensions of a body. We find a 3D body because we implemented a program to have a 3D body. This second operation can be considered artistic at best, fraud at worst. A body printed on a sheet renders an image which lengthens as it moves away from the center and which breaks up with the folds of the fabric or simply the extension of its surface because of the curve it takes. The hair must mark in a more blurred and light way, even stick to the skull since it is the blood which must mark. The sheet must be excessively stretched so as not to end up in places with hollows also represented but only the full ones. For that, the mark is in this sense too delimited. Where have the sides gone? Why would Jesus' followers have stretched the sheet above and below (what supports the body in this diagram?) so as to mark only the solids and not the sides? it doesn't make any sense. Ah and then given the small distance between the back and the front of the head, it seems impossible that the top of the skull did not print the fabric and therefore not connect the two. There is a difference of almost 7 cm between the frontal image and the dorsal image. The arms are too long (just enough to hide the genitals) as are the fingers. The forehead is too small. The body is surprisingly very large for the time of Jesus but much less when compared to the figure of the medieval knight.
Even assuming that the body is bent (the use of rigor mortis here is more of a magic solution that comes to counter attacks on proportions with bogus assumptions) it does not explain all the proportions more than 'unusual (like fingers). Especially since the folded body does not change the fact that we have the choice between a tempera technique on bas-relief on one side (which explains the dimensions and makes it possible to have a task with similar characteristics such as the showed the various experiments made) and a body in suspension which is printed thanks to a magic ray on a sheet itself in suspension. And then the shot of the bent body also increases the problem of the front/back junction of the skull because a bent body requires an even longer sheet and changes the deformation of the image even more.
The sample for carbon dating was carried out by three sindonologists (hard to say that they would have failed on purpose) including experts in ancient textiles (if they are not able to recognize a more recent piece of stitched fabric from almost a millennium and a half so there is a big problem) on a rectangular piece taken from the bottom left of the ventral image and specifically far from any damaged or stitched part (it can be seen with the naked eye). The sample was then sent to three prestigious independent laboratories recognized for their excellence in this method and whose results are consistent with each other (the shroud was woven with flax harvested between 1260 and 1390) and with the appearance of the shroud in the story.
The fires of 1532 added scorch and water marks (to put out the fire) to this one but that's not enough to discredit the carbon dating. The ad hoc hypothesis of contamination by a fungus which would have distorted the dating is contradicted by the calculations made by Henri Brock which shows that the fungus should have brought twice as much carbon as the laundry currently contains. His calculations also show that the fire should have contributed twice as much carbon as the laundry contains if the fire only dated back to 1800 and more than 5 times for 1500. It should not be forgotten either that any dating carbon is preceded by a cleaning phase to remove the carbon pollution. The ad hoc hypothesis of proton bombardment is itself such a mystery that it absolutely cannot pass Ockham's razor and totally contradicts the laws of physics.
There is an excellent scientific article which presents the carbon dating of 1988, the extreme precautions and guarantees that have been taken so as not to make any mistakes (great media pressure) as well as the immediate and unsurprising desire of believers to pass this dating for bad because it does not validate their beliefs. It also presents the subsequent unsuccessful attempts to contradict this dating by ad hoc hypotheses and by other datings, but whose methodological biases were too great to draw anything from them, until recently and far from completly refuting this dating. The opinion also of Christopher Ramsey (director of the AMS laboratory in Oxford at the time of writing the article and a specialist in carbon dating) is reported there, who accepts the idea of a new dating with other techniques (tested these and not created for the shroud) in the hope that it will allow believers to no longer take pleasure in the denial of scientific results which in the long term will make it possible to clean up the scientific debate. The article in question dates from December 23, 2013, was written by Richard CORFIELD and is entitled "Chemistry in the face of belief". However, it is more easily found by searching for "The enduring controversy of the Turin Shroud".
Quote from Christopher Ramsey in 2008: "I'm always willing to consider any serious suggestions of why the dating might not be correct and to do further tests to investigate such suggestions. In this sense, i keep an open mind - as I would about any scientific investigation. However, my strong intuition, based on my experience in this field, is that the new hypothesis will not challenge the accuracy of the original radiocarbon dating exercise." This position is shared by all specialists in radio-carbon dating. Jacques Evin, for example, gives a very similar opinion. In 2019, T. Casabianca (accustomed to publications on the Turin's shroud) published a study in the journal Archaeometry, which showed a lack of homogeneity in the raw carbon dating data, without proving an ancient origin. Indeed, Walsh Bryan and Schwalbe Larry show in 2020 in their article "An instructive inter-laboratory comparison: The 1988 radiocarbon dating of the Shroud of Turin" that only a few decades of difference are necessary to reach the 95% reliability announced in 1988.
In 2005, Raymond Roger, member of STURP, published a study (R.N.Rogers, “Studies on the radiocarbon sample from the shroud of turin.”, Thermochimica Acta, 425 (2005), p. 189-194.) which claimed to show that the dating of 1988 is false because made on patched parts. It is based on the vanillin level of the fibers taken, on a Wiesner test and claims both to demonstrate the invalidity of the 1988 dating but also to date the shroud itself to an age between 1300 and 3000 years. Many problems with this study: We have no guarantee where the sample comes from or its storage conditions. This one was given to him by Luigi Gonella who claims to hold it from the 1988 levy but no proof is provided, only his word. Nothing says that it is not a fabric from a totally different origin. The heat from the Shroud's fire was more than enough to vaporize the Vanillin from the surface of the Shroud in seconds and even much less. Rogers' dating method is unique, unprecedented and therefore not at all well-established, unlike that of 1988, which leads to suspicion. The values of the Wiesner test were taken in a perfectly arbitrary way. The analysis is made on a surface sample only (by adhesive) and without taking into account surface phenomena. It misses the margins of error of various numerical values, sources and references while various errors suggest that Rogers probably did not pass the peer review or that he found a way to cheat with it.
In 1973, an analysis of the pollens and the dust of the linen concluded to a passage of this one in Jerusalem at the time of Jesus. Problem: the study lacks considerable precision, other pollens which should have been there (if this was the case) are not, as well as the calcyte deposited on the pollens during the fire of 1532 and the images of criminologist Max Fry strangely do not show traces of the fire (a good classic fraud in sight) which is explained by the admission of this one according to which he had taken reference images and not the real ones images of the shroud pollens. For Marzia Boi in 2010: her work is neither in agreement with previous pollen surveys and their expectations, nor in agreement with the study by Gianni Barcaccia who speaks to us squarely of pollen coming from East Africa until to China, the two willingly forgetting that the Shroud was not always kept well protected but was even exposed to the public (the degradation of the pollen is therefore quite different from the ideal state they imagine) on different occasions during which an audience of believers from all over the world could come to see him.
It is not really possible to determine with precision and certainty the geographical origin of a pollen. A palynologist will tell you that we can (at best) determine the biological family to which he belongs and then see in which places in the world this family has been found over the ages, but there again it remains excessively unreliable and imprecise.
Me: Immediately goes to the comments looking for Otangelo's nonsense.
Ok. Then why don't we just keep ourselves posted for any new findings of evidence on the shroud. Cuz clearly, as it stands we're still not sure
It seems that you don't have enough information about the shroud😂😂...
Now, *that's* putting it mildly!! 🤣
It seems that you don't have enough words in your sentence.
It was a terrible presentation filled with false info. He is extremely ignorant of the facts of the case.
Listen up everybody.
The old man at the start of the video was basically presenting some scientific findings - but he is ultimately like a scared dog.
He does not want to admit that he BELIEVES that the image captured on the shroud is actually YAHWEH in the flesh - in the form of his son who is also known as Jesus Christ.
That would make him sound crazy as the Catholic Church makes NO such claims about the shroud of Turin.
Its always kept on display as a focal point for the wider world and also as a noted religious artififact in the west.
This is the official Catholic position on the shroud of Turin.
@@shaunigothictv1003 Glory To The Triune God
The person he is referring to in this video is a Jewish expert on the Shroud, I cannot believe this video or the comment section believes any of this. If you want to learn more search Fr. Andrew Dalton or Barry Strous to name a few. He clearing has not looked at what experts have had to say on this, very poorly researched video.
You are arguing lack of scientific evidence for the shroud being something other than artistic production of the 13th century, by also providing non-scientifically proven method and results! Unfortunately the irony is lost on new. If you really care about science, read this new scientific reasearch then: De Caro, Liberato, et al. "X-ray Dating of a Turin Shroud’s Linen Sample." Heritage 5.2 (2022): 860-870.
Why does the Catholic Church make it so difficult for scientists to examine the Shroud? Why??
because we are not to base our faith on an object
Mostly to preserve it. That kind of cloth that old is so sensitive to light, oxygen, moisture,etc. Displaying it or doing to much research on it will ruin it.
$$$
..they don't want it contaminated/damaged further- and being a well-verified, first century wove, pure linen cloth, potentially from Judah based on various contemporary micro-pollen found in it, likely it is increasingly delicate to handle?
@BuxomMaid And yet here are the catholics trying desperately to make more of these "objects" as proof of their version of faith.
The sample was contaminated as Ray Rogers admitted when he rexamined his sample.
New testing contradicts the carbon 14 X-ray and infra-red spectroscopy obtained a 1st century range.
The linen weave was not produced in medieval Europe at the time. A British atheist art historian says that the image is not consistent with medieval style, does not believe it could have been done . The linen probably came from Nazareth which was a centre of fine linen production for Palestine, so I read.
Pollen samples on the shroud come from the Levant region.
The shroud itself seems to be from 1st century. Could easily have been picked up by a pilgrim or crusader, then produced the image later.
The image itself could have been made later....possibly using AB human blood, I guess. There was plenty of brutality and bloodshed during the crusades.
Great video. When Dan says that disproving all proposed explanations wouldn't disprove that the markings were human-made, he could have referred to the basic logical problem: one typically cannot "prove a negative."
Oh - that one is a groan-er!😉
Your have to prove the argument, regardless of positive or negative. Any positive argument can be rearranged to be a negative argument, and vice-versa.
One argues the positive assertion, another argues the negative assertion, which is a debate. Each side has to support and thereby prove their assertion, weather positive or negative. The negative side cannot just sit it out and claim the positive side has to do all the work.
@@VictorHarrys Thanks for demonstrating your utter ignorance of logic.
If you claim X, you must prove X. If my response to your claim is "I do not believe you have proven X," then I have no further burden of proof.
A positive argument must always bear the burden of proof. A negative argument, simply refusing acceptance of the positive, has zero burden.
Oh no. Otangelo won't like this. 🤣
What I find interesting is that the shroud's dating matches with near the end of the crusades. I have to wonder if the Shroud was intended as manufactured propaganda to raise support for more crusades.
It was used to raise money yes
The fibrils on the Shroud of Turin fabric have severe electro magnetic radiation damage. The same level of electro magnetic radiation damage as the linen wrapping of the Dead Sea Scrolls, that we know are over 2000 years old. The Shroud MUST be relatively the same age. There is no way the Shroud comes a 13 century time period.
This conclusion is not just based on the the radiation damage but examining the forensic evidence in totality. Recent X Ray Scattering tests, a new Science, tells us the cloth comes from the time period of Jesus and many more tests done tell us the same.
It dates to the first century actually.
You’ve been outdated. Patches of linen which were 1st century have been found in that shroud which was mixed with cotton that was sewn into the shroud. Please bring up more updated sources.
Nah..it was woven in the first century AD..look it up.
Where is Otangelo?!
As though he knows what he’s talking about………own digit firmly placed on ‘dislike ‘ button.
It's not a painted on image you are grotesquely wrong on that one it's impossible how the image was even imprinted on the Shroud because it's practically holographic the way how it's done its 3D. People of that time didn't have that ability do should a thing. It was caused by the radiation of him resurrecting, vibrating to a higher state, you know energy.
Correct!!
@@Useenworldhappened within a forty billionth of a second. So fast, so violently that it only imprinted a single layer of the material. I guess now we know how fast a "twinkling of an eye" is!!
I don’t agree with everything this guy says, like the hands laying could not cover the genitals… Sure they can. My thing is that there is no way a piece of fabric, draped over a dead body, would produce a perfect representation of a human figure. There would be wrinkles, the image would be distorted. It just isn’t possible.
I feel sorry for this guy and all those that say the shroud is a forgery, but at the end of the day, man cannot be saved in his ignorance. People that believe the C14 Carbon dating test was correct are ignoring the facts that proved it was 100% inaccurate.
Ray Rogers said without a doubt that the shroud is not a painting as the image was water stained hence the water did not distort the image. Hence no paint
I once saw the face of jesus on a slice of cheese pizza. I ate it anyways.
You ate the body of Christ! Yay! ;o)
Listen up everybody.
The old man at the start of the video was basically presenting some scientific findings - but he is ultimately like a scared dog.
He does not want to admit that he BELIEVES that the image captured on the shroud is actually YAHWEH in the flesh - in the form of his son who is also known as Jesus Christ.
That would make him sound crazy as the Catholic Church makes NO such claims about the shroud of Turin.
Its always kept on display as a focal point for the wider world and also as a noted religious artififact in the west.
This is the official Catholic position on the shroud of Turin.
I just tried laying down and covering myself they way it’s depicted in the shroud. It’s perfectly reasonable. Nothing is hyperextended or stretched out of place. I don’t have a centrifuge or lab equipment. I can’t specify anything from carbon dating, but this i can test and your full of malarkey on this. When you lie about something so easy to test it makes it pretty hard to trust you on the stuff you need to be trusted to believe.
Hi Paul, some people have longer arms than others, it's true, but many people who have succeeded in covering their groin with their hands have not considered the angle at which the arms are bent. It appears that the upper arms are more or less parallel, and in line with the main axis of the body, then bent at the elbows to cover the groin.
This is much less easy than using straight arms, angled from the shoulder, and although I cannot deny that it may be possible in your case, it is extremely unusual. I don't think it's fair to call Dan a liar on those grounds.
I have to admit that I’ve never considered that I might, one day, lay down on the floor of my living room and try to lie in a way that allows me to cover my genitals with my hands. New experiences! At any rate, I can’t. In fact, I have to hunch my shoulders forward to get that kind of reach, and my elbows are no longer bent at all, much less at that angle. My arms would have to be at least a foot longer for me to be able to lie in that position naturally, with my elbows bent that way. Actually, I’m not convinced that a foot would do the trick, come to think of it. And if I relax and let my elbow hit the floor, my hands can no longer cover each other at any part of my body, much less my groin. There are genetic conditions that result in elongated limbs (Marfan’s syndrome comes to mind), so perhaps you have one of those?
@@karmachameleon326 I did fracture a clavicle causing some irregularities at the shoulder that could explain some of difference between us. This type of injury although not precise by any notion would be expected if you were hanging your body weight from the wrists for 4 hours.
@@paulpierce2051 Ooof. Nope. It seemed like you were making a rational reply to my statement, then you throw that nonsense in at the end. It has nothing to do with clavicles - my arms are simply not nearly long enough. And no, your arms wouldn’t be significantly lengthened by hanging from them for a few hours, nor would a fracture in the clavicle or shoulders result in that lengthening. Look at the shroud - that image has the shoulders and elbows at perfectly normal positions, with the exception that the arms are abnormally long. Feel free to believe what you wish, it’s not my place to try to convince you of anything, and I have no interest in doing so. But please don’t try to sway my thinking with complete nonsense.
@@karmachameleon326 The forearms are elongated. I’m not a rocket scientist here but wouldn’t you expect that kind of distortion from a 3D object imposed on a 2d surface? Based on your last reply I have serious doubts about taking you seriously though.
He was waking up
What you failed to mention is that the shroud can only be seen clearly and in total detail is by looking at the image as a negative. You cannot replicate that you, can not paint it , you can not fake it. It’s impossible and you should be able tomorrow see this.
Not true. It is a pseudo negative. For example, if you reverse the image, the hair becomes white. And this aspect has been replicated using medieval techniques.
well well well...
Very cool how Jesus looks just like the European paintings. God forbid he looks like a Palestinian jew...Christians would throw a fit
As most people know, those "European paintings" were based on how Jesus looked on the Shroud. Not vice versa. Few people are dumb enough to think that the image on the Shroud was of some guy from Europe.
guess you got debinked 2 weeks ago.
Jesus didn’t look like Apollo nor Jupiter.
What bollocks!……….I mean the presenter’s conclusions
What is your specific area of expertise regarding the shroud? You speak with a forceful authority on the subject.
Mmmm. And all of it wrong.
It is just a lie by omission, factual studies led by STURP determined there is no significant amount of paint or any substance found on fibers, which could lead to the creation of the image on The Shroud. Walter MacCrone found little bits of vermillion and iron oxide in microscopic amounts and based on this fact concluded the whole image was made this way. In fact the Shroud had contact with many paintings.
Carbon dating was also performed not many times but only once on the single 4x1 cm strip in the region where it was reported, it was repaired- obviously it must have led to miscalculation as amounts of C14 would be much lower due to medieval cotton replacement.
It is really hard to debunk those theories, everyone who is against the shroud usually hides or diminishes some of the factual data. Btw. how would it be even possible to do something like this 700 years ago? Any naturalistic, scientific explenation?
@@goodtoGoNow1956 Exactly. To me it suspicious that at all times media try to establish The Shroud as fake, presenting reconstructions, sometimes viable artistically, but not having the properties of The Shroud. I myself was convinced for a long time, The Shroud is a hoax. But in fact media outlets and people publishing these theories are misleading their audience. There is no conclusion as to the shroud origin, but it is mindboggling that before VI century Jesus was depicted as the standard roman citizen, and suddenly everything changed - The image of Christ Pantocreator (fully compatible with the face on The Shroud) appeared and since then everyone recognizes Jesus as a long haired and bearded.
It begs to question the carbondating.
Also new evidence was brought by WAXS, confirming its origin in the 1st century, but it is automatically diminished by sceptics as unreliable.
*But why won't they just explain that it must have been created by the forgotten genius medieval psychopath killer, rather than just limit to saying it is fake?*
Listen up everybody.
The old man at the start of the video was basically presenting some scientific findings - but he is ultimately like a scared dog.
He does not want to admit that he BELIEVES that the image captured on the shroud is actually YAHWEH in the flesh - in the form of his son who is also known as Jesus Christ.
That would make him sound crazy as the Catholic Church makes NO such claims about the shroud of Turin.
Its always kept on display as a focal point for the wider world and also as a noted religious artififact in the west.
This is the official Catholic position on the shroud of Turin.
@Shauni Gothic TV This man is Barrie Schwartz, he is jewish, created and runs a site "shroud . ... com", which actually consists of all the research done throughout the years.
Basically this youtube creator, who portrays himself as a wise wholesome person is so against the shroud that he didn't bother to do basic factchecking.
@@Arcadius8
Ok thanks for the info.
Peace.
The face is not three-dimensional but on the contrary rather two-dimensional. A three-dimensional face does not have the same proportions as a photo as is the case for that of the shroud which, once its 3D shape has been reconstructed by computer, gives the shape more of a bas-relief than of a body. , and again, even a bas-relief seems like a lot. The 3D shape is obtained by computer only with the addition of a program which accentuates the proportions so as to have a correct 3D body, which constitutes a fraud. We find a 3D body because we implemented a program to have a 3D body. A body printed on a sheet renders an image which lengthens away from the center and which breaks up with the folds of the fabric or implements the extension of its surface because of the curve it takes. The hair must mark in a much more blurred and light way, even stick to the skull since it is the blood which must mark. Moreover, the sheet must be excessively stretched (what would be the reason?) so as not to end up in places with hollows also represented but only full ones. For that, the mark is in this sense too delimited. Where have the sides gone? Why would the followers of Jesus have stretched the sheet like this above and below (what supports the body in this diagram?) so as to mark only the solids and not the sides? it doesn't make any sense. Oh and then he wouldn't miss a game by chance? No, because given the small distance between the back of the head and the front of the head, it seems quite incredible that the top of the skull did not print the fabric and therefore not connect the two.
The sample for carbon dating was carried out by three sindonologists (it is therefore difficult to say that they would have failed on purpose) including experts in ancient textiles (if they are not able to recognize a piece of sewn fabric and much more recent then there is a big problem) on a rectangular piece taken from the bottom left of the ventral image and specifically away from any damaged or stitched up part. The sample was then sent to three prestigious independent laboratories whose results are consistent with each other and with the appearance of the shroud in history.
The fires of 1532 added scorch and water marks (to extinguish the fire) to this one but carbon 14 is not the only dating we have and the fact that it dates the shroud at a date different from what the believers say (the shroud was woven with flax harvested between 1260 and 1390) is not synonymous with an error of the former but just a belief of the latter. The ad hoc hypothesis of contamination by a fungus which would have falsified the dating is contradicted by the calculations made by Henri Brock which shows that the fungus should then have contributed twice as much carbon as the laundry currently contains if the fire dated only from 1800 and more than 5 times for 1500. The ad hoc hypothesis of proton bombardment is itself a mystery so great that it absolutely does not allow Ockham's razor to pass and contradicts d completely the laws of physics.
There is an excellent scientific article which presents the carbon dating of 1988, the extreme precautions and guarantees that have been taken so as not to make any mistakes (great media pressure) as well as the immediate and unsurprising desire of believers to pass this dating for bad because it does not validate their beliefs. It also presents the subsequent unsuccessful attempts to contradict this dating by ad hoc hypotheses and by other datings, but whose methodological biases were too great to draw anything from them. The opinion also of Christopher Ramsey (director of the AMS laboratory in Oxford at the time of writing and specialist in radiocarbon dating) is reported there, who accepts the idea of a new dating with other techniques (tested these and not created for the shroud) in the hope that it will allow believers to no longer wallow in the denial of scientific results which in the long term will make it possible to clean up the scientific debate. The article in question dates from December 23, 2013, was written by Richard CORFIELD and is entitled "Chemistry in the face of belief". However, it is more easily found by searching for "The enduring controversy of the Turin Shroud".
Quote from Christopher Ramsey in 2008 : "I'm always willing to consider any serious suggestions of why the dating might not be correct and to do further tests to investigate such suggestions. In this sens, i keep an open mind - as I would about any scientific investigation. However, my strong intuition, based on my experience in this field, is that the new hypothesis will not challenge the accuracy of the original radiocarbon dating exercise." This position taken by Christopher Ramsey is shared by all radio-carbon dating specialists who have taken an interest in this subject. Jacques Evin, for example, gives a very similar opinion.
In 2005, Raymond Roger, member of STURP, published a study (R.N.Rogers, “Studies on the radiocarbon sample from the shroud of turin.”, Thermochimica Acta, 425 (2005), p. 189-194.) which claimed to show that the dating of 1988 is false because made on patched parts. It is based on the vanillin level of the fibers taken, on a Wiesner test and claims both to demonstrate the invalidity of the 1988 dating but also to date the shroud itself to an age between 1300 and 3000 years. Many problems with this study: We have no guarantee where the sample comes from or its storage conditions. This one was given to him by Luigi Gonella who claims to hold it from the 1988 levy but no proof is provided, only his word. Nothing says that it is not a fabric from a totally different origin. The heat from the Shroud's fire was more than enough to vaporize the vanillin from the surface of the Shroud in seconds and even much less. Rogers' dating method is unique, unprecedented and therefore not at all well-established, unlike that of 1988, which leads to suspicion. The values of the Wiesner test were taken in a perfectly arbitrary way. The analysis is made on a surface sample only (by adhesive) and without taking into account the surface phenomena. It lacks the margins of error of various numerical values. There is a severe lack of sources and references as well as various errors which suggest that Rogers may not have passed the peer review or found a way to cheat with it.
In 1973, an analysis of the pollens and the dust of the linen concluded to a passage of this one in Jerusalem at the time of Jesus. Problem: the study lacks considerable precision, other pollens which should have been there (if that was the case) are not, as well as the calcyte deposited on the pollens during the fire of 1532 and the images of the criminologist Max Fry strangely do not report the traces of the fire (a good classic fraud in sight) which is explained by the admission of this one according to which he had taken reference images and not the real pictures of shroud pollens. For Marzia Boi in 2010: her work is neither in agreement with previous pollen surveys and their expectations, nor in agreement with the study by Gianni Barcaccia who speaks to us squarely of pollen coming from East Africa until to China, the two willingly forgetting that the Shroud was not always kept well protected but was even exposed to the public (the degradation of the pollen is therefore quite different from the ideal state they imagine) on different occasions during which an audience of believers from all over the world could come to see him.
And then it is not really possible to determine with precision and safety the geographical origin of a pollen. A palynologist will tell you that we can (at best) determine the biological family to which he belongs and then see in which places in the world this family has been found over the ages, but there again it remains excessively unreliable and imprecise.
The existence of the trace of the coins inside the eyes has never been demonstrated. It is put forward by several sindonologists (those who have never had the shroud under their eyes and who only base themselves on the photos) but refuted by other sindonologists and by several scientists who do not see these "pieces" when they observe the eyes (they speak rather of a pareidolia for those who believe they see them as well as on certain modifications that the photos may have received) and are based on the impossibility (or excessively low possibility) for a linen with such a seam to print signs that are so small on a piece that is too small. Covering the eyes with coins is not a Jewish custom.
0:22
"Not how scientific evidence works".
Ahhhh,,,,hmmmm
Could you,,,,ahhh,,, Please elaborate😮😂
Honest question: What comprises the "overwhelming preponderance of evidence"? The problem seems to be, rather, that almost all the other data points to the shroud at least *not* being medieval, if not it being authentic, whatever that would mean. The carbon dating has been done once, on a single patch of sample that was cut up in three parts and sent to three different laboratories. All the subsequent datings (note: these methods are apparently not as established as C14, e.g. the latest being a yet experimental x-ray scattering a few years ago) place the shroud in an earlier time period. Another problem, and arguably the most important one, is philosophical. Our current mainstream worldview simply does not allow for something like this shroud to be a result of anything other than human artistry. It is a totally reasonable stance, but in that light, which side of this debate has higher stakes and is more prone to "come from a place of dogmatism"? Christianity is not affected whether the Shroud of Turin is proven to be a forgery.. But what if it is proven to be 1st century Palestinian artefact? You ought not to kid yourself thinking scientists do not have their own horse in the race too (a proverb often used by the "individual" in those clips, Barrie Schwortz, a Jewish photographer and a member of the STURP team, when he stresses that he has no personal religious bias about the shroud), merely because they are human beings. We can never prove that the man in the shroud is Jesus Christ, much less that he was resurrected, not even that the image is not man-made, but idk, at some point there's a danger of resorting to mere absurdities in order to defend what one believes to be true.
was the blood on the shroud of turin tested? If it is indeed the blood of Christ, it will still be alive and will not have the same blood group of man.
This guys is the perfect example of the Bible verse "fools professing to be wise"
Really? Gauche.
It's lamb's blood. Just throwing that out there for fun 11 months after this video was made.
Fale af.
A very well presented analysis of the shroud by Dan McClellan, but trying to oppose religious dogma with rational analysis is like expecting college kids to go to an art museum instead of a raucous football game. Higher aspects of the mind require discernment and reassessing old beliefs, and nothing has such a truculent hold on our mind as religious dogma. Thank you Dan.
It would help if he was fact based, impartial and thorough in his investigation. But he was not. He is either lying or completely ignorant of the facts of the case.
He did a terrible job.
@@GoodShepherdFilms3333 In 1988 the catholic church provided three separate laboratories with samples of the shroud and all three came up with the same radio carbon dating result. The shroud's origination was dated between 1260 and 1390. These are facts not opinions, but people will always believe what they want to believe. It's called confirmation bias.
@@michaelmckinney7240 carbon dating means nothing. This guys video was shocking. There is literally no sign of paint. Stop hiding from the truth
@@TheJoker-wr1cp The joker must be joking. If carbon dating means nothing than science means nothing, the same science that enables you to live a long disease free life, the same science that enables all of us to communicate instantly over enormous distances, the same science that gave us the Hubble telescope, GPS, computer technology, etc., etc., etc..
You meant to say carbon dating means nothing to you because it offers convincing evidence that runs counter to one of your cherished beliefs.
@@michaelmckinney7240 no it means nothing because something happened during that period too the shroud (not the creation) compared to all the clear evidence of the authenticity the carbon dating means nothing. Carbon dating is also extremely flawed especially with fossils (the Darwin cult)
“There’s no data to support the carbon 14 tests were off”
Except two studies in peer reviewed journals, one published by oxford, were one of the labs was based. Plus if you look at the raw data (which they only recently released under duress) for the 88 dating the whole experiment was a hot mess. One sample from one area, no control, and the samplers were told ahead of time the date range.
You can be against authenticity and for good science. We need to test it again.
Perhaps unbeknownst to many - there is objective data to show that the carbon 14 test was invalid. This was published in 2019 by Tristan Casabianca of France when the "raw data" of the 3 labs was finally released. He had to sue Oxford by the Freedom of Information Law to get the information released. The 1989 paper of Oxford originally said the Chi-square value was 6.2 and just fell within the range of acceptable deviation. In fact, there was data manipulation in that 1989 paper which shows the Chi-square value to be 9.2 - or 1.04% probabillity. This is significant deviation, and thus, the carbon dating is invalid. As we move across the tested 4 samples the shroud samples get 91-97 years younger PER INCH. In no way could it be representative of the whole shroud. It is heterogenous.
@@jimbertrand8587yeah I’ve looked through the raw myself (which was only released under threat of legal action 20 years on, so top tier science) and it’s a total mess.
YOU'RE AN ARTIST?
A BS ARTIST FOR SURE
but they tested it its real blood AB
Absolutely uncertain, and wouldn't prove anything anyway.
We must not forget that the scriptures says that prior to Jesus' crucifixion
The Roman Soldiers parted his garments, and cast lots to see what every man
Should take, The Gospels of Luke and John says that the linen clothes were left
behind in the tomb ( Luke 24:12 ) Christians claims that Jesus was physically
resurrected as a living human being, Not as a ghost or spirit.
This belief then raises the question of whether or not Jesus left the tomb Naked,
And according to John 19:39--40, Jesus's body was bound in strips of linen cloths
with a hundred pounds of spice. isn't the shroud of Turin one piece of cloth without
any sign of been sown together ? And even if blood was found on the shroud, How
could anyone prove who's blood that was ? The shroud is a proven Fake.
You were obviously at the capitol riot!
The fuck? The capitol rioters were bible banging assholes. This guy is not that...
Best evidence that the pope is not infallible because he said it was okay to venerate the shroud.
That has nothing to do with the infallibillity of the Pope. It's moronic to claim giving an optional permission is the same as commanding belief. How about if you actually learn the truth about what you are trying to debunk instead of these clown comments?
@@gerry30 Your Poope can only be wrong so many times that the papacy itself becomes unreliable
@@TheFreeThought Really? Are you suddenly that much of an expert? Lay it out for me then. Show me what I'm missing. Make the distinction for me among the types of errors a Pope can make and the ones that make the papacy itself unreliable. While we're at it, what's the difference between the Pope and the Papacy?
@@gerry30it’s funny anyone takes that institution seriously after learning that a Medici was a pope.
@@princegobi5992 It is. That's probably evidence that it is Divinely Instituted. There's a story about when the Nazi's surrounded the Vatican, a soldier told a bishop, "We will destroy your Church" and the bishop replied, "If we haven't done it in so many centuries what makes you think you'll be able to?"
This guy is out of his mind: the image has no MEDIUM : ink, pigment, or scorching, AND there's 3d info imbedded: you can't possibly render 3d info by hand and expect the conversion to represent anything human.WTH
My hands easily cover my genitals, I don't even have to stretch
them at all
This guy is the fake. 😂😅😊 Debunked. Anti-science. The Shroud is real. His bias is obvious . Peace and love
The shroud is a catholic deception
AKA a Christian deception
How is it a deception
@@Cross-Defenderjust because it look those graven images of a Jesus that the artist painted centuries later and never even met Jesus, means it’s Jesus?
@@mooshei8165 well even if the shroud isn't authentic I have absolute no problems with that, the christian faith is not dependent on the shroud but on the faithfull testimonies of the new testament scriptures. 👍🏻
@@mooshei8165 and how knows may be Jesus does look like that?
1:14
Carbon dating continues to be 'salient'?
You been reading the dictionary again with Bobby brown 😂
Wow, you are years behind and in the dark regarding evidence. Frankly, quite unintelligent.
Forget the Tests. Jewish law at the time says no touching or collecting unclean stuff.
I am afraid, Dan, that you have not done your research properly, sorry. The scientific data does in fact suggest that the C14 test was erroneous, Oxford admitted that the test was not done properly and Tucson admitted they only tested half of the shroud piece they were given, making their conclusion invalid.
Youre incorrect about your C-14 claim. You just glossed over all the problems with it. And there is zero evidence of an artistic method. Youre just saying stuff, and wrongly.
The Shroud of Turin is a Hoax
1)The shroud is all one garment depicting a man’s face. This is not how Christ was placed in the tomb. We see in the scriptures that it was tradition to bury the dead in two sets of garments including a head napkin. We see this in the case of Lazarus, John 11:44-"And he that was dead came forth, bound hand and foot with graveclothes: and his face was bound about with a napkin. Jesus saith unto them, Loose him, and let him go." We see this at the tomb of Christ, John 20:7-"And the napkin, that was about his head, not lying with the linen clothes, but wrapped together in a place by itself."
2)Christ would not have shamed Himself by having long hair as depicted on the shroud. 1st Corinthians 11:14-15, “Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him?
But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her for a covering.”
3)Testing of the blood done on the shroud has revealed the “Y” chromosome. Jesus only had one earthly parent and that was Mary who could only give Him the “X” chromosome. Christ would not have the Y chromosome as it would have corrupted His divinity.
Great great observation
@@kevinmason3064 Bad observation. The napkin is in a Cathedral in Spain. It's known as "The Sudarium of Oviedo" It was used to cover His face as He was taken down from the cross. It's provenance is much older than the Shroud of Turin but it has the same blood type and the position of the blood marks matches up in a strange way that indicates the arm was blocking the "napkin" from fully encircling the head. so it had to be folded back. When this is done, the blood marks match the blood marks exactly on the Shroud of Turin.
1) The head napkin is now known as the Sudarium of Oviedo. It was used to cover his face to take Him down from the Cross. It was removed in the tomb and set aside when they covered Him with the linen that is now the Shroud. The blood stains match perfectly and the blood types are the same. Remember also that the women were coming back to finish the annointing when they encountered the empty tomb.
2) Long hair would have been down his back like a woman. Shoulder length hair would not be considered "long" in the first century.
3) Mary would have only had half the DNA. God could easily create the rest of the chromosomes just as He multiplied loaves and fishes, cured diseases or did any other miracles. To deny Christ His capabilities to generated Himself as a man is to deny His Manhood and Fully Man and Fully God.
Jesus and the Catholic Church are right. John Calvin's bad bible reading is wrong.
@@gerry30 Jesus is right, the Catholic Church is wrong, and I don’t follow John Calvin.
@@treystevenson9872 Calvin game up with your wrong reading of Scripture before you did. And without the Catholic Church being established with His authority, there is no Bible. With no Bible, the Church the only knowledge of Christ at all would still be witness the Catholic Church bears as it was in the first 4 centuries before the Council of Rome first established a list of Inspired Writings. It was originally called "The Divine Library" and later nicknamed "The Bible" and it was the Catholics during the Carolingian Empire that added punctuation, divided the books into chapters and verses.