5 Popular Arguments for the Shroud of Turin Debunked | Featuring Hugh Farey

Shroud super skeptic Hugh Farey helps us debunk some popular arguments we saw made in the comments section of our previous Shroud of Turin videos: The back wound pattern, the anatomy & nail location, the blood type, pollen, and limestone from the Holy Land. Turns out they aren't as strong as you might think!
If you haven't seen our previous Shroud videos, check them out here:
Episode 1 (Radiometric dating & invisible patches): • The Shroud of Turin is...
Episode 2 (Image formation, Radiation, & Chemistry): • The Shroud of Turin Im...
Episode 3 (Art, Pollen, & Patterns): • The Shroud of Turin is...
Debate w/ Real Seekers: • The Shroud of Turin: F...
Hugh's links:
independent.academia.edu/Hugh...
medievalshroud.com/
Interact with us:
Twitter: / pressx_todoubt
Facebook: / reason2doubt
Podcast: reason2doubt.podbean.com
Timestamps
0:00 - Intro
1:15 - Hugh Farey’s Background
5:30 - Back Wounds/Roman Flagrum
11:50 - Trigger Warning - Gore Begins
13:23 - Trigger Warning - Gore Ends
18:40 - Hand Wounds
30:45 - Blood Type
44:23 - Pollen
58:45 - Limestone
1:10:00 - Questioning Shroud Research
1:18:00 - Conclusion
#skepticism #history #shroudofturin #atheism

[@dennyfromcharlestonsc3325]

Great presentation! I love it! I always doubt it's authenticity although I am a Christian. I am a historian and one of my specialties is First Century Imperial Rome. Thank you, especially about the blood explanation.

[@TheoriginalGrumphy]

What about Ray Downings 3D image? Did they cover that

[@alancook4407]

Why the shroud is not of Jesus the spear wound was not were presumed

[@hughfarey3734]

Very weird. This is the third time I've posted this, as the previous two have lasted a short time and then disappeared. It was in response to Teddi (Theodora A Pappas) commenting on the scourge exhibited in the British Museum, and wondering why I didn't mention it. It's a reconstruction of some fragments bought from a jeweller and antiquities dealer in Rome in 1873, and consists of a 16.5 cm bronze handle and 29 bronze balls, which have been threaded onto a couple of new leather thongs. It has no relevance to the Shroud. She also mentioned a poem by Aurelius Prudentius about the martyrdom of St Romanus in Antioch in about 303AD. The most available translation mentions a "leaded lash" which would lend support to the 'dumb-bell' hypothesis if accurate, but there is no word for 'lash' in the original Latin. I did say more, but I'm getting fed up of typing it all out over and over again!

[@kidslovesatan34]

I don't know, Hugh, maybe god is messing with the channel 🤷‍♂

[@susannah1066]

@@kidslovesatan34 Actually it's satan who is the father of all lies-John 8:44

[@kidslovesatan34]

@@susannah1066 Satan doesn't exist and because this is an atheist channel, god is doing the messing.

[@kidslovesatan34]

@@susannah1066 Oh, I thought that was DJT. But it could be just a lot of overlap.

[@susannah1066]

@@kidslovesatan34 If it's only for atheists-I won't subscribe then.

[@mjt532]

I bet European Swallows migrated into Israel where they collected flowers containing pollen, holding the flowers in halved coconuts. And they weren't strong enough to hold the coconuts, so the coconuts fell to the ground, and some of the pollen dropped out, and came into contact with the Shroud. It couldn't have been African Swallows, because they're non-migratory.

[@ReasontoDoubt]

But what if God used African swallows as his chosen messenger because they're bigger? Surely they could be led by the almighty to migrate one time

[@ObjectiveEthics]

Hugh was an absolute joy to listen to. He is the Bob Ross of shroud studies. Happy little A-B blood corpuscle with happy little sugars.... 😂 I'm so glad I recently subscribed to this channel. As an agnostic I am always searching for the most accurate information for any religious commentary and your channel is head and shoulders above other atheist channels. You are polite in your presentations. You look at the evidence from both sides critically and objectively. Very well done!

[@ReasontoDoubt]

Glad you found it useful! How polite we are varies from day to day but we always try to be accurate. 😁

[@MagisterKyer]

He was incredibly fun to listen to, and I’m excited to use some of this information in a follow up to my own debate on the shroud! As always, y’all’s work is fantastic!

[@RealSeekers]

Agree Hugh is always entertaining to listen to- he has an unfair advantage with the British accent though. Anyways, I'd be interested to see your debate on the Shroud- what is the name of it on YouTUBE?

[@mjt532]

@@RealSeekers I found some under "Shroud Wars Farey"

[@RealSeekers]

@@mjt532 Thanks, those Shroud Wars shows are all on my channel though lol :)

[@mjt532]

@@RealSeekers 😀

[@KepiGal]

I have wondered about the back image. I thought that the back would have been torn open, much more damage than the marks on the shroud. Thank you for explaining that. I am a Christian and have never needed the shroud to confirm my faith. In fact, I have always been a skeptic. However it came about would be a fascinating story in itself!

[@historyforatheists9363]

This was absolutely brilliant. Comprehensive, suitably sceptical and Hugh is the epitome of dry British wit.

[@lindabattenberg5286]

How in 2023 can you not believe the shroud is authentic is beyond me. Putting religion aside these guys are completely ignorant of all the scientific peer reviewed journals, study’s and data done on shroud. they cherry pick certain things they don’t understand about the shroud that has been addressed many times before. which is very annoying Sense they basically just scan over the vast majority of the shrouds mystery’s that can’t be universally explained even with today’s technology. Like for example the cloth is a 3 dimensional image, it’s a perfect photographic negative image, it has blood of a tortured male on it, the blood was on the shroud before the image was formed there’s no paint on the shroud so it’s not a painting it’s not a scorch, it’s not a photograph it’s not manufactured etc-etc-etc it’s anatomy is absolutely perfect, the nails not being in the wrist is wrong, the man on the shroud is a middle eastern Semitic male there’s art prior to the 1300s clearly taking artistic inspiration from the shroud etc… they should try bringing in berry and Gary Habermas for the next video I’m sure that would go well for there channel of skeptics. Don’t talk about Christ burial shroud if you don’t know what your talking about.

[@Archangel657]

Yo! Wassup Tim! Question, I keep hearing claims from shroudies that the medieval theory was debunked and the carbon dating claimed to be a shame. You wouldn't happen know of any video or article addressing these allegations, would you?

[@ReasontoDoubt]

Not Tim, but he sometimes points people to our first Shroud video where we talk about the radiocarbon dating (kzbin.info/www/bejne/fWXceaZsfs91fLMsi=rY071bk9AARTd8Cy)

[@borneandayak6725]

​@@ReasontoDoubt the medieval theory already been debunked as biased and 100% wrong.

[@ReasontoDoubt]

@@borneandayak6725 Lol, you'll have to forgive me for not just taking your word on it

[@succulentsfun]

Wasn't the nails were driven in between the capitate and lunate bones for crucifixion? If so, check the x-ray image of human hand and wrist, the shroud image seems to match the position and angle pretty well.

[@laurakenny4597]

As a hand surgeon, where he demarcates the wrist is incorrect. He chose the radial carpal joint. But moving more distally towards the blood stains would potentially capture the carpus.

[@user-hs4ti2dg6l]

The point is, the shroud image matches where medieval artists put the holes in the back of the hand, so the claims that one producing the shroud wouldn't have put them where they appear, simply collapses.

[@EricFromPTown]

21:55 I had heard a theory that the image showed the skeletal structure in the shroud. In light of that theory, I don’t think the knuckles are placed correctly in this diagram. It seems the presenter has chosen this spot because of the apparent branching of the fingers. But under the skin the finger bones branch further in the hand.

[@jerryn.j.vondeling]

How did the medieval artist get a herringbone weave piece of linen, which was not available in Europe at that time.? How did a Medieval artist give the 3d charachteristics that the Shroud has? And what about the pre 1260 sources for the Shroud?

[@ReasontoDoubt]

Can you provide a citation on the weave being unavailable? I have seen that claim repeated a lot, but the only experts I've seen cited say the weave doesn't tell us anything We deal with the pre 1260 sources in episode 3 I believe

[@jerryn.j.vondeling]

@@ReasontoDoubt I saw it once i a Documentary I have to check which one it is. I'll check the other episode, but what about the 3d characteristics?

[@ReasontoDoubt]

The "3d characteristics", just to be clear, is that as the cloth would have been closer to the face the coloration is denser & appears darker. That allows someone to infer spatial information from it if they want. It's an interesting feature of the image and would have to be accounted for in any hypothesis of image formation. I don't think it's crazy to suppose that a human could have figured out "closer means darker", but I don't know how the image was made. That said, "I don't know" means "I don't know", it doesn't mean "Therefore I DO know and it was a miracle"

[@jerryn.j.vondeling]

@@ReasontoDoubt true, but no painting has those characteristics so we can rule that out. But how would 14th century artist achieve that. Other paintings also have darker and lighter colors, but ther is no 3d image.

[@ReasontoDoubt]

@jerryn.j.vondeling I don't think it was done with paint, at least not in the usual fashion. The lack of brush marks or meniscus whatevers (the thing where liquid pools up because of surface tension at the edges of threads) seems to point away from that. I don't know if I can rule out any other form of human expression, though. I'm not saying it *was* the work of an artist. I simply don't know and don't have enough information to even favor one explanation over another (beyond my background knowledge which indicates miracles are extremely unlikely)

[@richardhunter132]

so glad that you've had Hugh on. he is certainly the most well informed sceptic on the shroud that I'm aware of. I hope that one day he publishes a book on his findings as there's gazillions of shroud books out there but they are nearly all pro-authenticism

[@ReasontoDoubt]

I'd buy that book. Especially if it was on Audible and was read by Hugh!

[@planteruines5619]

but wait , at 27:25 , isn't the printing in 3D making the blue bone shorter ?

[@mocabe01]

Same thought. The blue bone will definitely look smaller esp if the hand is slightly tilted upwards due to it being over the other hand and covering groin area. The image was a 2D capture of a 3D man .

[@colinpurssey9875]

Refreshing to hear an erudite traditionalist Christian challenging those who affirm the Shrouds authenticity . I suspect that many of those who argue for its sacred origin are , although sincere , subliminally influenced by their religious/metaphysical prejudices , and thus believing that this phenomenon is empirical vindication of the resurrection . Similarly however , I think that many of those who argue against the shrouds Christological connection do so because they too are , at a subconscious level , beguiled by their atheistic/rationalist metaphysical preconceptions. As a Christian myself , I can see plausibility in both opposing perspectives in relation to their respective forensic and historical findings . I think therefore that the true status of the shroud's mysterious identity currently remains precisely that -- mysterious , and thus indeterminate .

[@UMAKEMESMILESWACKIN]

YOU CANNOT FAKE WHAT YOU CANNOT MAKE

[@Vishanti]

I learned more from this 90min video with Hugh Farey than in several decades of documentaries and books. THANK YOU!

[@RealSeekers]

Vishanti- you may want to look at my own work on the Shroud as I have had Hugh on many times, but even better I've had Hugh engaging with real Pro-Shroud experts, so that way you'd get both sides of the debate from those in the know. Documentaries do tend to give a very general take and try to sensalaize things.

[@impressivebat8096]

A bit strange that Hugh is a master in debunking superstition and shroud mythology but still believes Jesus rose from the death and was seen afterwards. I would love to hear his case for the resurrection of Jesus !

[@alysabrumfield9607]

Im a noahide wich means a non jew of the Jewish faith that follaws the ten commandments and thats a very good piont. He needs to read rabbi Tovia Singgers book let's get biblical and watch his videos as well as Tanahk talk with Rabbi Michael Skobac also on KZbin. One of Rabbi Singgers favorite fraises is " in the new testiment what is new is not true and whats true is not new" also he says "dont take my word for it but read it for yourselves" there is verses all throughout Tanahk of God forgiveness of sins by simply doing tishuvah/repentance he says that when there is no temple or your in a foreign land to look to Israel turn from your sin and do tishuvah in his name and he will cast your sins as far as east from west so basically God already had a perfectly good system for forgiveness of sins so theres no need of a Greco-Roman demi God killed as a half human sacrifice for sin forgiveness its REDUNDANT

[@TheoriginalGrumphy]

How about the 3d image by Ray Downing? Dont know much about it but if real 3d properties how was that made in the middleages?

[@ReasontoDoubt]

By "3d image", they mean that the areas that would be closer to the face of a corpse draped by the cloth are darker than the others. It's certainly a very unusual feature and nobody is sure how the image was made, but I don't think it is impossible to imagine being done in the middle ages. It's not like it would require modern photography or anything.

[@TheoriginalGrumphy]

@@ReasontoDoubt He made a 3d picture from it and said 3d properties. And we came from nothing or was always here. Both are equal unexplainable by normal means. And have not been explained yet. But i admit life feels very natural and very hard at times. And earth is not flat

[@ReasontoDoubt]

Yes, if the areas that are closer to where the face would be are darker, then that would allow you to infer "3d properties". I'm not disputing that that's the case; it clearly is. I'm just making sure it's clear what that statement actually means.

[@Tentandoamar]

​​@@ReasontoDoubtSe tu tivesse na idade média, tu iria ter todo esse trabalho para produzir uma imagem em um pano? Praticamente totalmente diferente do costume da época? Sendo o único objetivo feito daquele jeito, pq o farsante (gênio) não criou outros trabalhos tão brilhantes quanto? Por exemplo, da virgem Maria ou dos santos? Obrigado por existirem, estou aprendendo bastante com vocês, é um privilégio poder ouvir seu contra pontos. Caso Deus seja o Deus cristão, peço que eles abençoe suas vidas; peço beijando o chão, pois é uma honra poder ouvir pessoas brilhantes. 😘😘😘😘😘😘😘😘

[@matswessling6600]

if you paint a sculpture with something that evaporates onto the shroud you wrapped around it, you would get exactly that.

[@anthonyallard3156]

I thought the flogging argument is kind of weak. Those marks arent that distinct and look blended with smaller marks if you look at the image on the shroud it is a bloody mess really. You have to keep in mind he was hanging for hours so Id imagine his back was probably clotted a fair amount by the time he was wrapped.

[@anthonycraig274]

Thanks Hugh for an extraordinary detailed talk. However, I wish Hugh started with the cloth he made and demo that, how you can tell the age of organic material with carbon C14 -> C12, then even, crucifixion marks, then blood and pollen, etc. Great in-depth knowledge.

[@user-hs4ti2dg6l]

Brilliant stuff!

[@anthonycraig274]

The whole thing about blood was one massive red herring. That could have been easily skipped, but it’s nice to learn about blood and its markers.

[@Markodude]

This was so amazing! It’s true what Hugh said- sometimes it is easy to look at what an “expert” has to say on a topic that one doesn’t have a strong base of knowledge in and assume that the “expert” must be telling the truth. However, just because someone with higher “credentials” than the average layperson makes a statement doesn’t mean that they are correct. This video shows that everything needs to be considered before accepting what a “popular” article says. The reason it may be “popular” could be because it makes most people happy and reiterates their beliefs. It doesn’t make what these people believe objectively true. Something like that Spanish publication with a poor English translation which omitted some pertinent details is an exact example of this.

[@UMAKEMESMILESWACKIN]

YOU CANNOT FAKE WHAT YOU CANNOT MAKE

[@theodoraa.pappas3109]

Here are some additional observations about Hugh's show. With the whips that Hugh refers to as flagrums which lack metal balls, the thing that I wondered about is this: what makes Hugh think that this is an example of a "flagrum" and not just a common horse whip? I noticed that Hugh never referred to the somewhat reconstituted flagrum with metal (I seem to recall lead) balls that are in the British Museum. I've contacted them to try and ask them questions about it, but I received no response. I will say, however, that I do not think that even if the way that the flagrum in the British Museum was put back together is accurate, I do not think that this design will give us the scourge marks that we see on the Shroud. But, so what? We can easily see that these are pattern injuries. We see that this is a crucifixion victim. We know that pre-crucifixion scourgings were common. Hugh mocks the idea of reverse engineering. But, why? I think that with the scourge marks, this is a perfectly reasonable thing to do --it's not that there are infinite possibilities in terms of how this whip likely was designed. The Romans (and others) made whips from both leather and chain. Also, Hugh mentioned that flagrums had bits of pottery attached to them as well as bones but that there's no mention of little balls on the end of thongs. But, this is not correct. There are --the lead balls are known as plumbata and they were known to be attached to flagrums. For example, circa 392 AD, the poet Aurelius Prudentius compiled 14 poems that made up his work “Peristephanon”(“Crowns of Martyrdom”) about Roman and Spanish Christian martyrs. In the tenth poem, he wrote: “Let his back be beaten with many strokes, and his shoulders swell up with the blows of the leaded lash[.]”[[Emphasis added.] And he further describes the martyr receiving a “hail of blows” amid the leaded strokes (ictus plumbeos.) I found both the look on Hugh's face and his tone of voice --when referencing Mel Gibson's movie "The Passion of the Christ" to be a look and tone of both sarcasm and disgust --and, he called it, in a rather sarcastic and derogatory way, a "snuff film." Of course, a "snuff film" is an urban legend from the 1970's-1980's --where it was said that people in Hollywood were producing movies depicting real-life murders and that this, of course, was for profit. Obviously, this would be one of the more odious things a person could do. So, Hugh, a self-proclaimed Catholic, is debasing one of the most poignant depictions of the Jesus' crucifixion that has ever been made by referring to it as a "snuff film" with his chipper British accent. The look of disgust that Hugh had on his face when mentioning this movie was that of an anti-theist --not just a mere atheist. I marveled at Hugh's new hypothesis for the scourge wounds, too! I shall dub it (and Hugh, feel free to call it this, yourself) the "Spectacular Spud Hypothesis!" Hugh seems convinced that sculpting a potato into the shape of the scourge marks (dare I say, Hugh is trying to use "reverse engineering" here) would create the scourge marks that are seen on the Shroud --presumably when used like a rubber stamp and dipped into blood. Yes, Hugh, I'm familiar with homemade "potato stamps," but the problem is that the blood marks won't look the same as clots that have transferred onto cloth. The "spectacularly spudded scourge marks" will exhibit more capillarity on the linen than what we see with the scourge marks. Moreover, potatoes dipped in blood (even with lemon juice) to yield fluorescing halos around the blood marks that test positive for serum albumin. The "strawberry jello" "straw-man" argument was just priceless --it doesn't take into account that STURP performed additional tests to ascertain that the blood is blood and that the halos are comprised of serum albumin. Hugh just uses ad hoc attacks and does not mention the other complimentary evidence which make his "strawberry jello" argument ridiculous. But, Hugh is a smart guy --I will always "give the Devil his due." Hugh knows what he is doing. Hugh is entitled to his opinion, and he can make all the "straw men" arguments that he wants, and he can attack the Shroud's authenticity all he wants, and he can attack the concept of a supernatural Resurrection of Christ all he wants. But, it seems very sinister to me for someone to do this while, simultaneously, proclaiming oneself to be a Catholic Christian --or any Christian for that matter. Come out of the closet, Hugh, and be the anti-theist or atheist that I am convinced you are. Because, in pretending to be a Christian while undermining the tenets of Christianity (with your belief that Jesus was not supernaturally resurrected) you are exhibiting that "cognitive assonance" term that you coined on that show you just did.

[@ReasontoDoubt]

You'd certainly know more about Hugh's internal beliefs than he would, so that checks out

[@theodoraa.pappas3109]

Are you unfamiliar with the concept of people being deceptive?

[@ReasontoDoubt]

Are you unaware of the concept of people genuinely disagreeing with you? I have no idea what your beliefs are, but I can absolutely *guarantee* there are other self-professed Christians who believe you are not a "real" Christian. You can make whatever definition you prefer for your Scotsman. I'm going to go with what a person tells me unless I have very good reason to do otherwise.

[@theodoraa.pappas3109]

Well, there really are some basic definitions as to what a genuine Christian is --so I am not engaging in that famous fallacy. With the "Lazarus syndrome" --autoresuscitation-- this happens when someone has been wrongfully declared dead and then exhibits signs of life --typically within about 10 minutes of CPR efforts being completed. But, this is not somebody "rising from the dead" because, again, this is not death (with the Lazarus syndrome) but only the APPEARANCE of death. Mark 8:31 tells that Jesus prophesied His own Resurrection --after being KILLED (that is, DEATH) and after 3 days rising again. This is not the "Lazarus syndrome." And, of course, Jesus' resurrection from the dead is a fundamental tenet to the Christian faith. After all, in First Corinthians 15:14, it states: "And if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith." I am a criminal defense attorney, and I am quite experienced in swimming in a sea of people who disagree with me. But, if I agree with people who disagree with me, then, we'd both be wrong. 😋😆

[@kidslovesatan34]

@@theodoraa.pappas3109 "Are you unfamiliar with the concept of people being deceptive?" _No, unfortunately. I deal with a lot of online Christians._

[@robertjimenez5984]

Thank you 👍

[@henrimourant9855]

Whoa this guy is a legand. He's possibly the best expert on this topic imo.

[@ReasontoDoubt]

He was a blast to talk to as well!

[@host_theghost507]

Hugh Farey is a lucid and entertaining speaker-his students were lucky people. This was a much deeper dive than I expected, and I wound up learning a lot more about pollen and limestone than I expected to. But he did a fantastic job of explaining it to the layperson. I wish it wasn't necessary to go so deep into the weeds (literally) just to debunk a claim that is based mainly on the idea that the cloth exists because God is magic and the existence of the cloth proves that.

[@mjt532]

Was Walter McCrone mistaken about the shroud being composed of paint instead of blood?

[@ReasontoDoubt]

Probably

[@hughfarey3734]

Hi Paul! I get confused sliding up and down all the nested comments of comments, so I'm starting afresh! I think you're overstating my assertions, if I may say so. What I often find myself trying to argue about is not that I know all the answers, nor that all the authenticist arguments are wrong, but that authenticicist arguments, contrary to their stentorian insistence, do not prove authenticity. I could reduce my responses to a series of questions, but in keeping with my own belief that questions are not evidence of anything but ignorance, I try to avoid it. Some of the things you mentioned are of this kind. For instance, I am frequently told that the fluorescent borders around some edges of some bloodstains are serum. I am rarely told how they have been demonstrated to be, but one argument is that they fluoresce, and therefore they are serum, and therefore the blood is blood. In fact many things fluoresce, including most bodily effusions, but also lemon juice, which is also an anti-coagulant. As it happens I think that the blood probably is blood, but the fluorescence of the 'serum rings' is not, in itself, evidence of that. If it actually is lemon juice, then that could be an argument in favour of blood being applied with a pipette or similar, rather than bleeding from a body. But I'm not using the fact that lemon-juice fluoresces as proof of anything, and the fact that the 'serum-rings' fluoresce is not proof of anything either. You remark that I think "the gospel of John was not written by the apostle," as if this was an unusual idea. In fact it is probably the most common among theologians, even Catholic ones, and even Pope Benedict XVI, although he certainly thought the apostle John was behind it, decided that it was actually written by somebody else. The fact that all four evangelists speak of "rolling away" the stone door suggests to me that they were thinking of tombs in use after the destruction of Jerusalem, as archaeologically there are vanishingly few tombs with rolling stone doors from before. Now what's all this about ignoring contrasting arguments? I have never ignored any contrasting arguments. Quite the reverse, I am one of the very few people actually to study all the arguments for authenticity as deeply as possible, and certainly more than the vast majority of authenticists themselves, who don't care to. Just try me! Finally I have never claimed that the image we see is pareidolia, which anybody reading my work carefully will understand. I was explaining a very specific point, which is why the negative image looks as if it contains more information than the positive, when it doesn't. It is because we mentally add our own experiences to just about everything we see, pareidolic or not. We know that a man in the distance is not really smaller than a man a few feet away, for instance, or that a man walking along behind a low wall actually has legs and feet, even if we can't see them.

[@UMAKEMESMILESWACKIN]

YOU CANNOT FAKE WHAT YOU CANNOT MAKE IT IS THAT SIMPLE

[@HarryNicNicholas]

32:30 is that true, jefferson and anne hathaway in the garden of connecticut were the first americans? the founding mum and dad?

[@alittleofeverything4190]

I've never heard anyone entertain the idea that some poor bloke was tortured and wrapped in a twill cloth to create the forgery.

[@UMAKEMESMILESWACKIN]

IT IS NOT POSSIBLE

[@BeardedHereticAtheism]

I loved this! Haha

[@rockerobertson4002]

Omg you got him on. Great job!

[@InquisitiveBible]

Hugh Farey is wonderful. Informative and entertaining.

[@spikespiegal2655]

Also I find the cake argument a bit fallacious, I mean, if that cake were the most studied artefact of human history, pretty sure we’d be able to reproduce it :) The scientific literature on the shroud is far more than a photo…

[@ReasontoDoubt]

Assuming the fallacy you're referencing is the "False Analogy" fallacy...the Shroud isn't the most studied artifact in human history either so it's kind of a moot point. Researchers have had extremely limited access to the Shroud to study and experiment on. It's not surprising they can't figure it out when they aren't allowed to test it.

[@spikespiegal2655]

Google tells me it’s the shroud, ChatGPT tells me it’s “likely the Rosetta stone”… what to believe? ;)

[@hughfarey3734]

Hi Spike, it is certainly true that a great deal has been written about the Shroud and the possible circumstances of its creation. However, as a cloth and a chromophore, it has hardly been studied at all. A few centimetres of thread, some sticky tape slides of surface debris, and a spectral scan do not amount to a comprehensive characterisation of an artwork, of the kind that, say, a routine investigation of a suspect Rembrandt or Da Vinci typically inspires.

[@RealAtheology]

Excellent as always. I personally think your series on the subject, coupled with Hugh Farey and Dale Allison's work is enough to decisively settle the issue in favor of the Shroud not being authentic. Well done guys.

[@RealSeekers]

Hi Ben, I note that all of your sources on the Shroud are from one side of the debate which is not proper critical thinking given you admitted to me when you were on my show that you knew practically nothing about the Shroud on your end. Anyways, I just ask that you consider both sides first before deciding on the Shroud there.

[@paulbishop940]

I agree with Dale. Hugh always comes out with definite statements and ignores contrasting arguments. The image, whether you like it or not has never been explained and still remains a mystery. Hugh fills in gaps E.g. the serum halos which are only visible with uv lighting were in fact lemon juice. He states things such as the gospel of John was not written by the apostle and thus accounts for the mistakes he sees in the accounts of Jewish burial ritual as it was written much later and probably reflects the rituals in Ephesus. He refers to the positive (negative) image as pareidolia.

[@ReasontoDoubt]

Despite what dozens of commenters on YT would like to believe, "The image is a mystery we don't know how it was made" does not lead to "Therefore we DO know how it was made and it was a divine miracle"

[@paulbishop940]

@@ReasontoDoubt I didn’t say that we Do know how it was made and therefore it is a divine miracle. That’s your assumption.

[@ReasontoDoubt]

I didn't say you said it, but it is frequently pointed out as if "we don't know" is some sort of slam dunk point by Shroud proponents. "We don't know" will only ever mean "We don't know"

[@SPL0869]

Just wondering. If I were to just grant that the shroud was authentic and that it once held the body of Jesus, does that prove anything beyond the fact that the shroud once held the body of Jesus?

[@ReasontoDoubt]

If all you know is that this cloth once wrapped Jesus, that would not *necessarily* show anything beyond that simple fact, no. It would increase the likelihood of the usual miraculous explanations imo simply because they depend on it being authentic, so it being authentic helps their case.

[@SPL0869]

@@ReasontoDoubt oh ok, the usual, “let’s add up a bunch of mundane non supernatural claims and sooner or later it will equal supernatural causation”.

[@ReasontoDoubt]

I don't think the mere fact of authenticity would mean it was probably supernatural (though I have no doubt many supporters would say it was so). I'm just saying it would make it more likely than if the reverse were true.

[@SPL0869]

@@ReasontoDoubt no trust me, I understand your point completely and I agree with it. It’s how I found your channel actually. Turek was on Twitter or X asking what were some of the favorite “Christian archaeological” discoveries of the believers on the page. Someone brought up the shroud with the claim that the newest dating placed it in the first century and not the 13th or 14th as previously thought. I figured I’d find an explanation and that’s how I found your channel

[@ReasontoDoubt]

@SPL0869 Glad you found us!

[@onlyme972]

If you need to see what surging could do just lock at images of American slaves

[@txkevin3467]

"The Shroud is easily reproduced, just look at my marker and fabric." "Have you reproduced it?". "Well no." No one who has studied the shroud to my knowledge has concluded it is made with ink of any kind.

[@nathanjasper512]

I don't think the idea that you can't reproduce the shroud is a good argument for its authenticity. If it's really a burial shroud it should be easy to reproduce. Just wrap a naked bloody person up in a peice of cloth. Obviously the shroud isn't going to match up perfectly because it's very old, but again this isn't an argument that it's authentic just that we know old and its really hard to reproduce the effects of age. And the inability to reproduce an artistic work isn't that surprising. Modern people can't reproduce q Stradivarius wither but it isnt a miracle.

[@ReasontoDoubt]

That's an excellent point about that violin, I'm going to use that from now on

[@mickjames7962]

@@nathanjasper512wow you obviously haven’t studied the shroud in any meaningful detail. The data points on it aren’t just that it is a dead body wrapped in a a fabric. Far out. Get a clue.

[@user-hs4ti2dg6l]

Farey's relevant points are (1) that contrary to what Shroudies say, it's not true that anything applied to the shroud would sink in, and (2) no-one is allowed to study the shroud in the ways that would be required to determine how it was made.

[@frankfilippis]

NOBODY has reproduced the shrould with the same characteristics - Where do you get your facts

[@sergehychko3659]

It serves as a fantastic reminder that skepticism need not equate to atheism and that everyone should evaluate claims critically. The "new" atheists are not the only ones that develop that chip on their shoulders; malignant narcissists like myself are also susceptible to it.

[@righthand7965]

The shroud of turin is authentic ❤

[@billeib427]

Don't forget the stigmata. It is in the palms.

[@robertbreish8182]

Great presentation but see here’s the big problem I see this channel doing all too often. You talk about the shroud compared to the sudarium and make some statement like “the shroud has AB blood and the sudarium has AB blood. This must be the same man”. Of course that statement sounds moronic. My problem that I have with that is that’s where you guys left it. You guys conveniently left out that there are 120 points of congruence on the sudarium in comparison to the shroud. That’s a pretty big oversight. I see this channel doing more and more stuff like this and honestly guys…do better. You have an excellent channel and when you pull stuff like that it looks like you all are intentionally trying to deceive.

[@ReasontoDoubt]

Your criticism is that we did not do a deep dive into a completely separate and distinct artifact in the context of a video on the Shroud of Turin? If that's all people have to complain about then I'm going to call that a win! Though I will just say that "This one has AB, that one has AB, must be the same guy" is an argument you will find repeatedly in the comments of our other Shroud videos. We aren't just making this stuff up.

[@robertbreish8182]

@@ReasontoDoubt No. Leaving out the one fact that links the shroud to the sudarium is not doing a deep dive. It’s being irresponsible and misleading people.

[@hughfarey3734]

Hi Robert, thanks for informing me of the 120 points of congruence between the Sudarium and the Shroud. I have to say that I have studied all the literature I can on the Sudarium - much of it in Spanish - and have never been able to spot these 120 points of congruence. I would be very grateful if you could tell me where I can find them.

[@ReasontoDoubt]

I have heard a couple people make this claim, but I have not vetted it, so I do not know whether these alleged points of congruence actually exist. Finding that out would require a lot of work and reading of literature, which I haven't done. I'm not going to tell my audience that a thing is true unless I can be reasonably sure that it is true. THAT would be irresponsible. Given that they date many centuries apart with carbon dating, though, I'm not optimistic.

[@hughfarey3734]

@@ReasontoDoubt Spoiler alert. Nobody has ever responded to my request, although I have made it continually for about eight years. "Points of Congruence" is a myth.

[@spikespiegal2655]

Interesting. I had no idea we didn’t know what Roman flagrums looked like. A bit confused about the argument on nails placement though: first Hugh demonstrates that the angle shows the man of the Shroud was nailed at the palms, but then he points out Barbet was wrong to assume a body wouldn’t “hold” if nailed at the palms. The placement of the nails on the shroud doesn’t disprove authenticity then…

[@ReasontoDoubt]

It's not that the placement of the nails disprove authenticity per se. It's that the argument from Shroud proponents is that the placement on the wrists would have been impossible for a medieval artist since they put the nails in the palms. Hugh showed that the nails on the Shroud are about where medieval artists put them.

[@hughfarey3734]

Reason to Doubt explains it fine. A long-standing authenticist tradition claims that a) medieval artists always showed the nails through the palms, and b) Roman crucifixion demanded nails through the wrists, and c) the Shroud shows a nail wound in the wrist. Therefore, claims the tradition, the Shroud cannot be the work of a medieval artist. However, I think I have demonstrated that a) and b) and c) are all untrue, and do not support the traditional conclusion to the argument.

[@spikespiegal2655]

I think you demonstrated that b) and c) were false, which invalidates indeed that traditional argument (don’t think you argued that a) was false?). What I meant is that if b) were true, it would disprove the authenticity… the fact you demonstrated b) was false shows your integrity then :)

[@hughfarey3734]

@@spikespiegal2655 Oops, yes, you're quite right. (a) is not false, although there are a few exceptions.

[@paulbryhanson]

​@@hughfarey3734 I thoroughly enjoyed your arguments even though I believe the Shroud is authentic. But, I've used the latest technology to clear the image of the Shroud up significantly. It's not perfect but from my image it shows clearly the bones running from the finger tips to the wrists. It's neither in the centre of the palm nor the wrist on the back of the hand, but it is closer to the wrist than the centre of the palm. If you check where the Romans would put the nail through going from the wrist through to the back of the hand, they may have gone at a slight angle either due to not caring, they weren't surgeons or maybe going at an angle like that would cause maximum pain? Either way, where it was explains why the thumb was turned inwards. I agree with you with the AB blood. It degrades overtime. The limestone signiture was close in all the elements. But, then you have to wonder how much limestone or calcium ended up on the cloth from people who handled the Shroud in Europe, so it may have skewed the results slightly. But, all the other signitures including all the elements don't match that signiture, it appears only Jerusalem is the closest with ALL elements, but after 2000 years you would expect some slight alteration. With the pollen, I thought Max Frei actually used his identifying of pollens in his criminal investigative work? We know when the Shroud came to Europe from Turkey, it spent most of its time in churches or locked away somewhere which is why there wouldn't be as many pollens from Europe found on the cloth. With the scourge marks, I think your on to something. I've always thought that they had found that particular Roman flagrum in 70 A.D.?

[@gonzalocastillo749]

So how did the image get on the shroud to begin with? I’ve heard there’s no pigment, also could you go over the readings of the vp8 image analyzer. I am curious

[@ReasontoDoubt]

That's a good question. I don't know! There is one researcher who claims to have found pigment, but the STURP team disagreed. I think we talk about the VP8 image analyzer bit in our 3 part series...maybe episode 2? It's been a minute, but I know we mentioned it in one of them.

[@laurakenny4597]

Just an important fact regarding the section on the hand. The line we he demarcates the wrist is incorrect. The wrist is not defined by a single line. The wrist is the complex articulation of the radius to the carpus (made of 8 carpal bones). These are joints within joints. It spans several centimeters. As a surgeon of the hand, the blood stains could certainly represent a piercing in the carpus

[@worldofenigma1]

Isn't he making an assumption here that the cloth is laid flat against the hand, rather than the possibility that the hand might be at an angle to the cloth? The fingers might be flat against the cloth, but not the palm. That would change the relative dimensions.

[@worldofenigma1]

He also didn't say the tests were re-done with a newer corpse (or a living person!).

[@worldofenigma1]

Also, just because no one has found a 'flagrum' that matched doesn't mean it wasn't used. There could have been one invented on the day, even as a one-off, and it would still mean the shroud could be authentic. He also said the blood would be smeared all over, but the body might have been washed to some degree, leaving only a small amount of blood that might have oozed out from wounds after the body was put in the tomb (or even at the time of resurrection when blood might have started pumping around the body again via the action of the heart).

[@worldofenigma1]

Also, just because medieval artists put the nails through the palm doesn't make that automatically correct.

[@ReasontoDoubt]

@worldofenigma1 "Could have" != "Probably did"

[@worldofenigma1]

@@ReasontoDoubt I did not say that it was equal to probably did. Probably did != 100% did. Probably did is not even equal to 50% probability. The video is going by a nothing-doodle on a coin, plus a LACK of information about the details of the 'flagrum' actually used. Was the word 'flagrum' in the Bible? Probably not.

[@matijabandic]

23:15 Hugh Farey spatial cognition and knowledge of trigonometry and recognition of ankle is poor. As viewer changes position of depicted Jesuses nailed arm, so the angle of measurement must be adapted (enlarged in relation to measurement), but Farey missed to do so. Secondly Farey clearly doesn't try to recognise position of ankle in relation to nail.

[@howardbenoit7474]

very smart man wooow

[@bradlyclark8943]

I hope you guys read this. Roman crucification does not nail the hands either way. The arms were draped over the cross bar. TIED. And a nail was driven into the hand kinda between the thumb and forfinger only to keep them from untiing the ropes. No body ever looks up how the process actually worked! There's lots a documentation. None of the pictures are right.

[@ReasontoDoubt]

I believe that hands were sometimes tied, and sometimes nailed. Crucifixion wasn't practiced one single way throughout the empire or through time. Do you have any citations for their being exclusively tied and never nailed?

[@hughfarey3734]

Hi Bradly. Good to hear from you, even if I think you have have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. Just one example of the "lots a documentation" you claim exists would be extremely interesting, as there have been extensive studies and researches into Roman crucifixion, none of which have resulted in the confidence about how it was carried out that you exhibit here. Can you quote any sources at all?

[@bradlyclark8943]

@@hughfarey3734 Isreal Exploration Journal Vol. 35 #1. That's just what I can cite off the top of my head. But you have Google just like I do. I know there's also a Mythvision Episode that briefly explains the hand thing and cites sources also. I loose these messages as soon I clear my phone so once I figure it out my sources I won't be able to find this again. But I gave you one and moved you in a good direction for another. My personal belief is that Jesus is a myth so I have no dog in the fight . Lol. Thank you for responding. You don't know how much that means to me.

[@bradlyclark8943]

@@ReasontoDoubt Isreal Exploration Journal Vol 35 #1. Since then there has been a foot bone found with a nail going sideways proving the article.

[@ReasontoDoubt]

@bradlyclark8943 That's an interesting article, though the conclusion doesn't follow from the contents of the article itself. The evidence they are examining is a heel bone, which does not seem to tell much if anything about other bones. I also don't see any mention of thumbs being nailed. The conclusion seems to argue that tying may have been more common than nailing in Jerusalem, 1st century, due to the scarcity of wood in the area. They also admit, however, that literary and archeological sources regarding crucifixion are scarce. This is an interesting argument but I don't think it's enough to declare that nobody in Jerusalem was nailed to crosses.

[@theodoraa.pappas3109]

In response to Nick G's comment from today, apparently, you have not heard what Hugh said during his "Great Resurrection Debate." kzbin.infoRC-QKDyVpbI?feature=sharedHe does NOT believe in a supernatural resurrection but a natural resuscitation. Resurrection and resuscitation (basically, the Lazarus syndrome, are not the same thing.)

[@Lazarus365]

I am beginning to admire the medieval artist more than the modern scientists themselves who has so cleverly got the modern day scientists' nickers in a twist. Who will have the last laugh and who will be scratching their heads remains to be seen.

[@UMAKEMESMILESWACKIN]

Atheist and non believers made a "medieval man" a genius while making top scientist today D_Mb

[@airpower7692]

I don't see how this guys calling himself a skeptic when he believes in the deity without reasonable evidence to support it

[@ReasontoDoubt]

I can't speak for Hugh, but I suspect he would say he believes he has reasonable evidence to support it. I naturally think he's incorrect as an atheist, but I don't think everyone who is a theist is unreasonable in that belief.

[@airpower7692]

@@ReasontoDoubt well actually you can have a reason but it doesn't mean it's a good reason does the thing about being the skeptic you have to have good reasonable maybe even demonstrable most definitely falsifiable evidence

[@airpower7692]

@@ReasontoDoubt but anyway I'm not going to debate you about someone else without them present and being able to defend themselves I just want any theist that watches this hopefully comes into the comments and reads my comment and ask their self what good reasonable evidence do they have

[@dancinswords]

Favourite part 52:58

[@VenusLover17]

❤❤

[@RealSeekers]

So as I mentioned, this show has been generating a lot of great debate on SSG- an online private group of the Shroud experts and there has been a lot of amazing refutations of Hugh's arguments and claims in this show. I wish I was able to post some of it on here as again, it utterly exposes some of the nuance as well as out right fallacious things Hugh said in this show; that said, one of these experts, a non-religious Agnostic and historian named John Loken has kindly given me permission to at least post up one of his posts for people on here to benefit from. John Loken said the following below; "Shroud Researchers, A few details follow about Hugh's appearance or performance on the skeptic show "Reason to Doubt" just a few days ago. Initially he spoke about the flagrum question, from about minute 0:05:30 to minute 0:15:10. His presentation was very misleading in my view. To better understand the video, one might slow the voice speed and add closed captions. Hugh first spends about two minutes discussing a replica or reconstruction of the Roman flagrum that would have produced the Shroud Man's scourge wounds. He informs his audience, in a sarcastic tone of voice, that it is not a real Roman flagrum. My comment: No replica maker or Shroud expert has probably ever claimed that the replica in question was real. Only Shroud novices, who are numerous these days, have done that. So, it's a straw man argument, an easy, easy target. Worth mentioning in 30 seconds, yes, certainly, but not worth dwelling on for two gloating minutes. Hugh then spends another two minutes discussing the chains or connected metal rings that were found in a Roman museum and which have been considered by some Shroud experts to be ancient Roman whips. This point is certainly worthy of some mention, maybe for a minute, but he draws it out gratuitously in order to ridicule the claim at length. He might better have included the information that no Roman whip has ever been found, and the reasons why one hasn't been found: decomposition, repurposing of any metal materials, etc. But that admission would not have served his entrenched anti-Shroud-authenticity purpose. Hugh then asks,"What does a Roman flagrum look like? Well, we've got some examples here," strongly suggesting that they, merely artistic representations from Roman times, are very typical examples of such whips. "At the top you can see a man attacking a man with a spear and he seems to be holding a stick with a couple of thongs; it doesn't have any balls on it at all, it's just basically a whip." My Comment: Hugh's prize example is on a coin, a fact which he does not bother to tell his viewers. The coin cannot be more than about one inch (2.5 cm) in diameter, perhaps less. The whip it depicts is therefore mere millimeters in size, which obviously makes an omission of any ball-tipped ends on the thongs entirely understandable. The poor artisan who made the coin mold presumably had no microscope at hand to help him out with such details. But maybe Hugh knows otherwise. Hugh again: "And at the bottom we have a fairly typical example as described in Roman literature of a Roman flagrum ... thongs ... bones tied on.... And that's what a Roman flagrum actually looks like, and as you can imagine it won't inflict ... the kind of wounds that we see on the Shroud...." My Comment: Since no known examples of Roman whips/flagra are extant, and since their descriptions in Roman literature are few in number, and since the Roman artistic examples including a few on coins that have survived until today only number about a dozen, it is highly irresponsible for Hugh to call this a "typical" example and say it is "what a Roman flagrum actually looks like." What about acknowledging the criterion of sample size before making such blanket claims? At about minute 0:12:36 Hugh shows his audience photos from the Philippines Easter scourgings of recent years, with the bloody backs of men, as he says, a "complete mess." My Comment: While the backs of those men are indeed bloody, their wounds are very superficial, because the whips they used to self-flagellate appear more like whisk brooms, with no objects at all on their tips (that I can see). The wounds, however bloody, also did no internal damage at all, and the blood could or would quickly have been cleaned off their backs. At about minute 0:14:30, Hugh says of Roman whips: "lots of mentions of bits of pottery ... and bones" affixed to the whip thongs/lashes. My Comment, or Any Sensible Person's Comment: What does "lots" mean? Could he please provide some numbers? Even approximate numbers? And does Hugh really think that during the entire 400+ years of the Roman Empire, including the 1st century, no objects made of other materials, in particular metal, were ever affixed to the tips of Roman whip lashes/thongs? Even though the Romans were quite advanced in metallurgy? Also, does he not recognize that a wide variety of whip styles must have been used in an empire that extended for 2000 miles and more across the Mediterranean Sea? Hugh again: "They really did rip you to pieces ... which would have happened [in] most Roman floggings." My Comment: If "most" Roman slaveowners and Roman army commanders had whipped their victims so, with sharp bone- or pottery shard-tipped whips, they would very soon have run out of slaves and soldiers, because those victims would all be dead or bodily shredded and thus incapacitated for life. Hugh does not allow that there must, absolutely must, have been a wide range of styles among Roman whips, some meant to inflict extreme damage including the ripping of flesh, others to inflict only light pain, and still others, surely many others, to inflict great pain without ripping the body to shreds. At 15:09, Hugh mentions, "these rather delicate little bruises [on the Turin Shroud Man]." My Comment. Hugh is deeply confused about the pain and damage capable of being inflicted by small metal balls whipped violently on a lash against a human body. He utterly belittles it here. Would he please kindly volunteer for such treatment himself so as to prove his "delicate little bruises" claim? In sum, Hugh's words in this presentation were very misleading, and his manner was much too sarcastic. The rest of his talk was very similar in style. As of yesterday, 5/28/23, only three days after its publication on KZbin, that "Reason to Doubt" show with Hugh has already had some 922 views, All or almost all of the numerous comments made about it by viewers have praised Hugh's presentation highly. They are the main reason for this post. It's unfortunate that the Monty Python troupe disbanded long ago. If they were still in business, Hugh might qualify to join them. He'd be perfect for performing in a skit like the "Ministry of Silliness." John Loken"

[@hughfarey3734]

John is a sensible commenter, and he makes a reasonable case for a variety of Roman scourges, inflicting a variety of Roman punishments. All sorts of things are possible. However the basic case for authenticity here is that the Shroud depicts something that a medieval artist could not have known, namely the result of a Roman flogging. For this to be acceptable, it must be shown that the Shroud conforms to a Roman flogging, not just that it might do. This is not demonstrated by supposition, however reasonable, but by evidence, which is completely lacking. That being so, the idea that the medieval craftsman just made it up is just as credible.

[@RealSeekers]

@@hughfarey3734 I think this is a fair comment to make Hugh, yes if one were making a claim to know that only an ancient Roman flagrum could explain the scourge wounds on the Shroud Man and not some other whipping device then I'd agree we have that burden of proof, however in this show, it seemed to be you making the claim in that you felt you were able to rule out a Roman flagrum on the basis of what you presented and that is simply not true. That said, I'm not sure a medieval craftsman would be able to make such realistic wounds along with very fine scratches, esp. not using a potatoe as you suggested- I presume you've conducted the experiment on this already, please send me any photos of your results for comparison to the Shroud and I will post it up on my Blog.

[@ReasontoDoubt]

I'll only address the channel specific comments from Loken: While it may be true that "no replica maker or Shroud expert has...ever claimed that the replica in question was real" I sure wish those replica makers and Shroud experts would tell that to the LEGIONS of people in our comments section who will just. not. shut. up. about the flagrum. This is something I have noticed, not confined to just Shroud proponents; when we bring up something that we hear *constantly* from the lay audience, there is always someone waiting in the wings to criticize us for addressing it because "that's not what the experts think". Well, hip hip hooray for them but not every comment we make on this show is directed at them. Maybe if the folks in that Shroud chat of yours spent more time effectively communicating to their audiences then we wouldn't have to do it for them.

[@hughfarey3734]

​@@ReasontoDoubt Something to clear up. This quote from John Loken, above: "He [me] informs his audience, in a sarcastic tone of voice, that it is not a real Roman flagrum." No, I didn't. I didn't say it, and I didn't suggest anybody thinks it, or thought it. Go back and listen to what I said. This is not my straw horse, it is John's. I did say that lots of people, including many "experts" pontificating on KZbin, claim that it is a reconstruction based on archaeological evidence, which it isn't, and it is ignorant and misleading to make that claim.

[@christinemanigian209]

Can you explain how a medieval artist could create a 3-D image? That's what photographer Secundo Pia saw when he took a picture of The Shroud of Turin and developed the negative which turned out to be a positive 3-D image. I would like to hear your analysis of this. (For the true skeptics, would you say that a medieval artist would have crucified a man to mimic The Crucification of Jesus Christ? in order to get that 3-D positive image when photography wasn't in existence at thst time?)

[@ReasontoDoubt]

I do not know what method was used to create the image. I am not convinced it would require a knowledge of photography, though. It doesn't seem like that is necessary to understand "darker means closer" when you're working with a single color

[@anthonycraig274]

Evidence is Kryptonite to faith and religion.

[@ReasontoDoubt]

Depends on the individual's reasons for believing. Some people have religious beliefs for good reasons; some people have poor ones. The same goes for atheists.

[@anthonycraig274]

@@ReasontoDoubtThe definition of Faith is a strong belief in the doctrine of a religion base on spiritual conviction without proof or evidence. Obviously religion is based on faith. The difference with a non faith based belief, they don’t have an invested interest in that belief and once shown the evidence, they would change their mind. However, most who are religious, if shown the evidence counter to their faith, they are praised in continuing to believe as it shows the strength of their faith. Whereas a non believer would just be considered unreasonable.

[@ReasontoDoubt]

That is one definition. It's not the only one used commonly by the religious. I know many religious people who believe they have good evidence to support their religious convictions. I disagree with their assessment of that evidence, of course.

[@timothymulholland7905]

I love skeptics. They are they only people I would begin to believe. The Catholic Church has always authenticated miracles based on the God-of-the-gaps logic. If a scientist can’t figure it out, God did it.

[@RealSeekers]

Great, so you should believe The Catholic Church then as they haven't officially affirmed the Shroud as a miracle. Further you'll definately believe me and my work on Real Seekers as I'm a real skeptic at heart- I'm very skeptical of the Shroud skeptical case for the Shroud being a medeival fake.

[@epicofgilgamesh9964]

​@RealSeekers If you're a skeptic, what do you make of a primitive Hebrew war/storm god that's based on Canaanite mythology, has a fetish for foreskins, animal sacrifices, the smell of burning meat and who battles mythological sea creatures like other fictional gods from ancient Canaan? Look up: *"Yahweh was just an ancient Canaanite god. We have been deceived! - Escaping Christian Fundamentalism"* Do you think YHWH (Yahweh) was the father of Jesus? --------------------------------------------------------- According to the general consensus of scholarship *(even critical Christian scholars),* YHWH was originally incorporated into the Canaanite pantheon as a son of the Canaanite high god El before inheriting the top spot in the pantheon and El's wife Athirat (Asherah) before religious reforms "divorced" them. El's pantheon in Ugarit is called the *Elohim,* literally the plural of El. Interestingly, the Biblical god is also referred to numerous times as Elohim. If you want to see if El is fictional, just read his mythology in the Ugaritic/Canaanite texts. "When El was young, he came across two beautiful Goddesses washing their clothes in the Sea. They were Athirat (Asherah) and the Goddess Rahmaya, and, after buttering them up by cooking a meal for them, he asked them to choose between being his daughters or wives. They choose the latter and became the mothers of the Gods Shachar "Dawn" and Shalim "Dusk"." *"First, a god named El predates the arrival of the Israelites into Syria-Palestine.* Biblical usage shows El was not just a generic noun, but often a proper name for Israel’s God (e.g., Gen 33:20: “El, the God of Israel”)." "I should add here that it is very clear from the grammar that the noun nachalah in v. 9 should be translated “inheritance.” *Yahweh receives Israel as his “inheritance” (nachalah), just as the other sons of El received their nations as their inheritance (nachal, v. 8).* With this verb, especially in the Hiphil, the object is always what is being given as an inheritance. Thus, Israel is given to Yahweh as his inheritance. ((Here I’m indebted to Dan McClellan.)) It would make no sense for Elyon to give himself an inheritance. Moreover, as I’ve argued elsewhere, it is not just the Gentile nations that are divided up according to the number of the sons of El. It is all of humankind, i.e., “the sons of Adam.” This clearly includes Israel. And the sons of Adam are not divided up according to the number of the sons of El, plus one (i.e., plus Elyon). They are divided up, according to the text, solely according to the number of the sons of El. *Thus, that Yahweh receives Israel as his inheritance makes Yahweh one of the sons of El mentioned in v. 8. Any other construal of the text would constitute its rewriting."* *"The Most Heiser: Yahweh and Elyon in Psalm 82 and Deuteronomy 32 - Religion at the Margins"* based on the *majority scholarly consensus.* (Written by Thom Stark who is a Christian) *"Michael Heiser: A Unique Species? - Religion at the Margins"* (A second response to Michael Heiser) *"Excerpt from “Yahweh and the Gods and Goddesses of Canaan” by John Day - Lehi's Library."* *"The Table of Nations: The Geography of the World in Genesis 10"* - TheTorah.com (Excluding the short narrative on Nimrod (vv. 8-12), *which appears to be a later addition,* Genesis 10 contains *70* names of nations or cities, a number that was symbolic of totality. Similarly, the descendants of Jacob were *70* in number (Gen 46:37; Exod 1:5), *as were the sons of the supreme Canaanite god El, with whom YHWH became equated.)* *"Polytheism and Ancient Israel’s Canaanite Heritage. Part V | theyellowdart"* (Of course, much of this [i.e., that Israel worshiped El and Asherah alongside YHWH] is really to be expected given that recent syntheses of the *archaeological, cultural, and literary data* pertaining to the emergence of the nation of Israel in the Levant *show that most of the people who would eventually compose this group were originally Canaanite. As the Hebrew Bible notes, the Hebrew language itself is a Canaanite language, literally the “lip of Canaan” (שְׂפַת כְּנַעַן; Is. **19:18**), and so it cannot often be distinguished by modern scholars from other Canaanite inscriptions on purely linguistic grounds.)* *"Ugarit - New World Encyclopedia"* (Ugaritic religion centered on the chief god, Ilu or El, whose titles included "Father of mankind" and "Creator of the creation." The Court of El was referred to as the (plural) 'lhm or ***Elohim,*** a word ***later used by the biblical writers to describe the Hebrew deity*** and translated into English as "God," in the singular. El, which was ***also the name of the God of Abraham,*** was described as an aged deity with white hair, seated on a throne.) *"Mark Smith: Yahweh as El’s Son & Yahweh’s Ascendency - Lehi's Library"* (Mark Smith is a Catholic) *"God, Gods, and Sons (and Daughters) of God in the Hebrew Bible. Part III | theyellowdart"* *"02 | December | 2009 | Daniel O. McClellan - Psalm 82"* (Daniel McClellan is a Mormon) *"Elohim | Daniel O. McClellan"* (Refer to the article "Angels and Demons (and Michael Heiser)") *"God's Wife Edited Out of the Bible - Almost."* (Pay attention to whose wife Asherah (Athirat) is in the Ugaritic/Canaanite texts and how she became the wife of YHWH/Yahweh) *"Yahweh's Divorce from the Goddess Asherah in the Garden of Eden - Mythology Matters."* *"Asherah, God's Wife in Ancient Israel. Part IV - theyellowdart"* *"The Gates of Ishtar - El, was the original god of the bible."* *"The Gates of Ishtar - Anath in the Elephantine Papyri"* (In addition to Asherah (Athirat) being the consort of Yahweh, it appears some Israelites also viewed the Canaanite goddess Anat(h) as Yahweh's consort) *"Canaanite Religion - New World Encyclopedia"* (Refer to the section "Relationship to Biblical Religion") *"The Syncretization of Yahweh and El : reddit/AcademicBiblical"* (For a good summary of all of the above articles) Watch Professor Christine Hayes who lectures on the Hebrew Bible at Yale University. Watch lecture 2 from 40:40 to 41:50 minutes, lecture 7 from 30:00 minutes onwards, lecture 8 from 12:00 to 17:30 minutes and lecture 12 from 27:40 minutes onwards. Watch *"Pagan Origins of Judaism"* by Sigalius Myricantur and read the description in the video to see the scholarship the video is based on. Watch *"How Monotheism Evolved"* by Sigalius Myricantur and watch up to at least 21:40. Watch *"Atheism - A History of God (The Polytheistic Origins of Christianity and Judaism)"* (By a former theist) Watch *"The Origins of Yahweh"* by Derreck Bennett at Atheologica.

[@UMAKEMESMILESWACKIN]

so how hard for you to explain what you call a forgery? maybe there are gaps in your head

[@kidslovesatan34]

Hugh is a gentleman and a great skeptic.

[@StraightShooter.]

What the thinker thinks, the prover proves! RAW.

[@jasonrash747]

How did a medieval artist create something, that has so much detail to it in the negative? Why would somone put blood on the shroud before putting the image on it? How could a medieval person create something so accurate biologically and anatomically ( several pathologists have attested to the accuracy) when something as simple as autopsy was quite often not even allowed? Dr. Kevin Mcquaid recently questioned whether you could even confim or deny the exact nail placement of palm or wrist due to the blood interfering with the view on the shroud. Why would a person go to such great lengths to create this shroud then leave off the feet on the frontal image of the man in the shroud image?

[@ReasontoDoubt]

If you can't say for sure whether the nail is in the palm or the wrist, then that certainly can't be an argument for authenticity. Hugh and others have shown several anatomical issues. Minor though they are, it is far from perfect. I do not know how the image was made. We may never know if the Vatican refuses to allow further testing.

[@hughfarey3734]

Hi Jason, thank you for your four questions. Unfortunately, and not untypically, they carry with them assumptions which should not be assumed, and consequently they cannot be answered. They seem to imply (forgive me if I'm wrong) the logical fallacy that an unanswered question constitutes evidence for something, which it doesn't. Anyway, I will at least respond. 1) The Shroud image has very little detail to it, and the negative has no more detail to it than the positive. There are no eyebrows, facial wrinkles, collarbones, nipples, navel, fingernails, or any definition to the limbs. The entire shape is a series of blurry stains. It is true that the negative image looks more 'realistic' than the positive, but as it is no more than a simple inverse of colour of every pixel, there is no extra detail on it. Such extra information as there appears comes from our own mental processes, derived from experience, education and culture, and not from the cloth itself. 2) I don't think anybody put blood on the Shroud before putting the image on it. The evidence for "blood before image" is very weak, but if it must be addressed, there are sensible possibilities. I have long thought that the image derives from a life-sized bas relief, of the kind used in Quem Quaeritis ceremonies, such as is described in the Medieval 'Use of Hereford,' where the statue was to be washed in wine before being ritually placed in its 'shroud' and 'buried' in the Easter Sepulchre. Anybody wanting to obtain an image from such a statue might well put blood onto the statue, after washing it with wine but before placing the cloth on it. The blood would thus touch the cloth before the chromophore underneath it. 3) As demonstrated by myself and others, the image is not sufficiently precise for anybody to assert that it is any more biologically or anatomically accurate than many medieval craftsmen were able to create, and did create, often. Those pathologists who have committed themselves to details of the alleged accuracy of the anatomical and pathological details have disagreed with each other so clearly that their statements actually affirm the imprecision, rather than contradicting it. 4) The Shroud was created to place the two heads equally in the centre of the cloth. The feet are not cut off on the frontal image. It is not obvious how they were carved, but it seems as if the cloth beneath the model was brought up over the soles, while the cloth above, against the instep, did not receive a clear imprint. I was looking forward to Dr McQuaid's analysis of some of the anatomical features of the image, but unfortunately he did not seem to have looked at as carefully as is necessary for his assessment to be justified by the evidence.

[@rickelmonoggin]

@@hughfarey3734 if the shroud was derived from a bass relief, wouldn't there need to be a bass relief for both the front and the back of the shroud? I wonder how likely it is that such a thing would be ready to hand for the shroud creator?

[@hughfarey3734]

@@rickelmonoggin Good point, and it is a pity that so few of the sculptures used in the Easter Sepulchres remain to us. I don't even know if the ones which do, and which are in the form of a bas relief, have carved back sides as well. However, I don't find it unlikely. When one thinks of a bas relief one normally thinks of something set into a wall - or at least designed not to be visible from the back - but the statues made to fit the Easter Sepulchres were designed to be carried to them, and laid in them, sometimes wrapped in cloth, which suggests at least some kind of consideration of the back. The exact relationship between the object depicted and the image depicting it will continue to be obscure until a much better characterisation of the Shroud is achieved by a more image-focussed investigation. It may be that the Shroud used a pre-existing carving, or that both carving and image (and possibly sepulchre as well) were all made as a set. The ritual commemoration of turning a crucifix into an entombment, in wood, stimulated some surprising solutions, such as hinged arms, and little hatches in the side or back in which to place the consecrated host from Good Friday to Easter Sunday, so one should not be too suspicious of the unlikelihood of possible designs from which the Shroud might have been achieved.

[@rickelmonoggin]

@@hughfarey3734 I suppose that even if such things were rare, it could be the case that one just happened to be available to the shroud creator, and if it hadn't he would just have had to come up with some other solution - such are the serendipitys of life I do wonder though if you have considered the possibility that the image is actually a painting in the conventional sense? it may seem astonishing and ridiculous that an artist would paint a negative image that only centuries later would become visible as a positive through the use of technology that he couldn't possibly have dreamed of; but there are good reasons why that could be exactly what he did do. the standard technique of painters in those days, when trying to convey the illusion of 3-d form, was to apply lighter paint to a darker ground, using opaque paint for the highlights and increasingly more transparent paint for the gradiations towards dark. transparent paint could be achieved by hatching or scumbling. artists typically didn't paint from life (how would you on a church wall or even a ceiling?) so their ability to render the human form in this way was something that they had internalised. now, if I were a Medieval artist commissioned to create a shroud image with the requirements being: 1. it must look like an imprint from a body, 2. it must be recognisable as a human being; then it would seem that the obvious way of going about this would be by using the technique that I am already very familiar with, but reversing it so that I use dark colour for the highlights and paint upon the light ground of the shroud cloth. this would result in something very like what we see in the shroud I think one of the problems with coming up with hypotheses for how the shroud was created is that it must be a way that was not just possible for a Medieval artist to do but also plausible. yes, it's possible that he could have used some primitive form of photography - as someone has suggested - using the chemicals and lenses available in his day, but is that really plausible? on the other hand, I think the idea that I've outlined would seem a logical choice for an artist to make. he would be using techniques and materials that he was intimately familiar with, albeit it applying them in a slightly unusual way

[@Raider66ify]

Oooof. Bad strawman: No one argues that that because the blood on the ciborium is AB and the blood on the Shroud is AB therefore Christians conclude it proves the man in the Shroud is Jesus. Never heard that as a primary argument for the Shroud. If you are opposing something, it is better to steel man it first.

[@ReasontoDoubt]

Clearly you have not spent much time in the comment section on Shroud of Turin videos, or watched many Apologists talk about the Shroud. Which probably means you've made better life choices than I have. 😆 But yes, the points we covered here were selected precisely because they were the most common arguments or objections we've seen. Doesn't mean everyone argues every point.

[@Raider66ify]

@@ReasontoDoubt I appreciate the reply and hope you have a great day 👍

[@JohnnyArtPavlou]

Pollen and limestone! 😠🥺

[@txkevin3467]

I enjoyed listening to the school teacher turned shroud expert. His presentation was interesting. Unfortunately the interesting angles presented to show the nail was through the hand rather than the wrist, does not align at all with ...well one's eyes. If someone looks at the actual image on the shroud in enhanced positive form, rather than the very light image on the actual shroud he showed, it is quite clear its in the wrist. The angles were fun though. The "evidence" debunking the Roman Flagrum is a notation that we have never found one that matches the wounds? It certainly matches the Flagrum discription (3 or more leather bands with lead or bone) and the first example image of a Flagum was found AFTER the supposed medieval creation date of the Shroud. I find it hard to believe the "blood" stains were jello. It is fun seeing Atheist in the position Christians are typically criticized for by imposing creative mental gymnastics and wild hypothetical "what if's" to make their desired outcome seem plausible.

[@ReasontoDoubt]

"Wild hypotheticals" like "It wasn't magic" 😄

[@txkevin3467]

@@ReasontoDoubt Magic hasn't been discussed. Information has been presented that is entirely plausible, it fits historical accounts ...to the T, and hypothesis of how something that seems pretty extraordinary was created, has been presented. It hasn't been recreated (close in 2009), it has been corroborated on many data points which if taken as a whole, are pretty convincing. Its a very interesting artifact. It is just like God though.....If you want to believe, everything you need is there. If you don't want to believe, you can likely find that as well if you try hard enough.

[@ReasontoDoubt]

@txkevin3467 That does seem like a pretty weird way for a deity to operate though, isn't it? It seems like if he wanted a relationship with people he'd start by introducing himself. I can only conclude that, for whatever reason, he's not interested in a relationship with me! Which hey, fair enough, I'm not for everyone! 😄 Edit: To be clear, other people believe they have sufficient reason to believe in God or even have encountered them directly. Perhaps they have! I can't assess those experiences, but the evidence I do have does not seem to be sufficient, Shroud of Turin notwithstanding

[@MrWiza57]

Suggest listeners follow science and logic. Listen to Gary Habermas.

[@user-hs4ti2dg6l]

@MrWiza57 "Listen to Gary Habermas..." if you want a good laugh at human gullibility!

[@lorainwauters669]

"Upright but not standing"...look it up

[@pati3ntx]

Your fingers are spread open in your example.

[@KurtisHord]

Medieval people drew hands like AI.

[@KurtisHord]

He lost me with the angles and shit… and I do angles for a living. Here’s a radical third way. It’s authentic, and it’s made. Both are correct. There is no time. The messiah mythology will continue to present itself, in spooky action at a distance.

[@KurtisHord]

It’s not every day that a death-defying space wizard shows up and messes with people’s head so bad, they had to go get a new watch. This little magic trick and the cult surrounding it reroutes human motivation to a very weird and specific goal…. Even if the shroud is fake, it’s real. Time is not.

[@Bildad1976]

Can atheists be objective in their examination of the Shroud of Turin? In other words, can atheists find either way, that it is authentic, or inauthentic? And could an atheist find that the Shroud is authentic while still being an atheist? I don't think so. (If you think so, show me one.) Their goal is not to find the truth, but only to persuade others that it's NOT true. How about Christians? Can Christians find either way, authentic or inauthentic, and still remain a Christian? Of course, they can. It's quite common for Christians to disagree on the authenticity of the Shroud. The unavoidable, inevitable conclusion is that atheists cannot be objective on the authenticity of the Shroud of Turin, while Christians can. Therefore, there is little value in listening to atheists debate the authenticity of the Shroud of Turin. They are not searching for the truth, they are only trying to persuade others of their subjective bias.

[@ReasontoDoubt]

You seem to think that an atheist is incapable of deciding not to be an atheist anymore. That's just silly. If I found sufficient evidence for the existence of a deity, I'd stop being an atheist.

[@Bildad1976]

@@ReasontoDoubt Thank you for agreeing with me. An atheist cannot find that the Shroud of Turin is the authentic burial shroud of Jesus and continue to be an atheist. So if none of you can objectively find that the Shroud is the authentic burial shroud of Jesus, why don't you admit your inability to objectively find the truth regarding the Shroud before you begin the video (instead of pretending that you are honestly searching for the truth)? Here is a suggested disclaimer: "Hey folks, before we begin, we would like to let you know that there's no way we can objectively evaluate the truth regarding the Shroud's authenticity. We can only claim that it is not authentic. Regardless of the evidence, we could never find that the Shroud is authentic. Thank you."

[@ReasontoDoubt]

@Bildad1976 I did not agree to that. Isn't lying a sin? Best get praying for forgiveness! The Shroud being the authentic burial cloth of Jesus would, in and of itself, say absolutely nothing about anything supernatural. Once again, though, I have to emphasize that we ARE looking for the truth. If the evidence were such that we would have to cease being atheists to incorporate it...then we'd cease being atheists. This is a bizarre line of reasoning. You seem to think that if a conclusion would lead to someone changing their mind they can't possibly arrive at that conclusion. Have you never changed your mind about something?

[@Bildad1976]

@@ReasontoDoubt Yes, you DO agree with me that if you believed the evidence, you would CEASE to be an atheist. Thus, atheists are incapable of believing in the authenticity of the Shroud. That means atheists are incapable of objectively evaluating the evidence and deciding either pro or con. Atheists can only decide one way regarding the Shroud's authenticity. If you were a potential juror in a court of law and you were asked if you could objectively evaluate the evidence and decide guilt or innocence, you would have to answer "No, I could not find the defendant innocent; only guilty." This would disqualify you as an objective juror because of your prejudicial bias. On the other hand, Christians CAN objectively evaluate and decide either guilt or innocence in the case of the Shroud of Turin (because, in the end, both sides will still be Christians). Since atheists cannot decide that the Shroud of Turin is the authentic burial shroud of Jesus, you should point your viewers to a video of Christians debating the authenticity of the Shroud as an honest search for the truth. Anything less is dishonest.

[@ReasontoDoubt]

@Bildad1976 I...do....do you not understand the concept of changing one's mind? Like, is the very idea that you can change your mind about something completely foreign to you? How? How have you made it this far in life without being aware that people can change their minds on things? Do you think that if I ceased to be an atheist I would spontaneously explode? Like I would cease to exist or be required by atheist law to kill myself? Make it make sense 😂🤣😂

[@TheLeonhamm]

Problems .. for whom? Not Catholics, the cloth is an iconic relic - nothing has changed*. For the scientists involved in disproving 'it' or in debunking the attempts to 'prove' it; neither side of the 'science' stance has proved (or disproved) anything - either in dvancing their own case or against that of their opponents. The disputed data, and the supposed facts made of interpreting that data, are far from clear - even as data let alone fact; and the only 'fact' established so far from all the data presented, misrepresented, and reconsidered is .. that the Shoud is an Icon reverred by Catholics for what it is, a religious icon not a science magazine media-headline photograph (regardless of the oddities in the picture formed). Keep the Faith; tell the truth, shame the devil, and let the demons shriek. God bless. ;o) * The only puzzle for the Faithful is that sceintists are still so incensed by a beautiful image, and not at all intrigued by the oddly preserved beauty of that image .. however it was formed, neglected, hidden, transported, nearly destroyed, stiched back together, and manhandled without much real care for centuries - even down to sticky-tape samples or snipped corners.

[@waxworse]

Tide pods

[@MelEakins]

An hour and 15 minutes of sarcasm, mockery and self-pride. I don’t know where I stand on the shroud, but your arguments that you think are so strong are really not very compelling. Your approach will not impress someone who is critically trying to consider all data - you will turn off a person like that. You - at best, weaken some of the arguments for the shroud’s authenticity, but you presented no arguments or proof that it is not.

[@ReasontoDoubt]

The purpose of the video was to address common claims made in the comments of our previous videos, not to conclusively prove anything. We have a series of three videos (as of time of writing) that dive into the data a bit more. As to the tone, I make no apologies for having fun with my hobby.

[@MelEakins]

All I can say is that your guest is a very very very proud man, and you guys were giggling like school girls. I was looking for a serious discussion, looks like I went to the wrong place.

[@ReasontoDoubt]

I am sorry the sight of people having a good time is offensive to you. If you want a show run by humorless automatons, then you probably shouldn't pick the one hosted by a guy in a garish bow tie

[@MelEakins]

Agreed

[@hughfarey3734]

@@MelEakins Hi Mel! Good of you to watch the video, and good of you to comment. However, I'm not sure that you found anything factually incorrect. Do you consider yourself as "someone who is critically trying to consider all data"? Do you have any other data that contradicts what I said? I appreciate that my approach was light-hearted, and I may have come across as over-confident. However, I assure you that I am open to correction, and look forward to your advice. Best wishes, Hugh

[@alancook4407]

And let us delve further Jesus was crucified alone with 2people close to him and one soldier watching on not with a lance but a normal spear used in their army

[@alancook4407]

Jesus had 2persons at the foot of the cross he was crucified alone no other persons crucified with him one soldier watching on

[@ebmmbe2149]

🙄 LMFAOOOO

[@williamwilson6499]

One fact to not lose sight of is there is no irrefutable evidence that the Jesus story in the gospels even occurred. The premise of a demigod, one straight out of Greek mythology, coming to Earth to die and resurrect for the forgiveness of sin is ludicrous on its face. It’s an amalgam of human sacrifice culture and blood magic. But I’m enjoying watching and reading the sparring of those for and those against as they demonstrate the circus freak show that the shroud truly is.

[@ReasontoDoubt]

There's lots of evidence for some historical person of Jesus who the Gospels are based on. I don't know if you'd call it "irrefutable" but it's pretty darn good

[@williamwilson6499]

@@ReasontoDoubt It’s crap, but even if the evidence proved a historical man named Jesus running around 1st Century CE Jerusalem causing trouble, it doesn’t prove the demigod as described in the gospels. No proof of the miracles or the healing of lepers. No proof of casting out demons. And most of all, no proof of a resurrection. No resurrection, no Christianity. And certainly no shroud.

[@williamwilson6499]

⁠​⁠@@ReasontoDoubtAnother comment disappears. The evidence isn’t pretty darn good, but even if a case could be made for a 1st Century CE rabbi named Jesus running around Jerusalem stirring up trouble, it doesn’t prove the gospel accounts of the aforementioned demigod dying and resurrecting to cleanse sin. No death, no resurrection, no Christianity. And certainly no shroud.

[@williamwilson6499]

@@ReasontoDoubtTwo comments disappeared.

[@williamwilson6499]

Fuck KZbin.

[@crizalde1]

Just three wise Alec skeptics talking to each other, talking about some probabilities that investigators of the Holy Shroud might missed.

[@ReasontoDoubt]

Mostly accurate

[@crizalde1]

@@ReasontoDoubt Yes... but not as complex and as astonishing as what the other doubting scientists already have investigated and discovered about the Holy Shroud ... the trio's claimed are quite amateurishly can be explained but they are interesting...

[@ReasontoDoubt]

@crizalde1 Well if they're so easy to explain, then do tell!

[@crizalde1]

@@ReasontoDoubt My answers going to start with my PROBABLY and we gonna wrap it up with your PROBABLY...LET JUST KEEP IT WITH AN OPEN MIND...PEACE TO ALL OF YOU...

[@kidslovesatan34]

​@@crizalde1My mind is plenty open, it's just not gullible.

[@a.g.hustlegarland4197]

He's trying to hard to debunk the hand and wrist

[@Yahshua_is_Yahweh]

😂

[@maninalift]

You would have potato printed the blood stains? There were no potatoes in Europe in the fourteenth century. Checkmate atheist.... I mean skeptical Catholic. 😂

[@moesypittounikos]

This is amazing but he didn't go into the photo negative thing which is the most interesting thing about the shroud

[@ReasontoDoubt]

We gave him a list of catch-all items that have come up in the comments to address. The sort of things that don't warrant their own episode

[@BurningBushPedagogy]

when you need almost hour to debunk something, then I know you dont know anything, even if it was a fake. at least condense your video

[@ReasontoDoubt]

No

[@casscobiolabs7082]

Nothing he said has any weight to it.

[@alancook4407]

Let's delve into a lance being used in peircing Jesus i don't agree Jesus was peirced lower down on his right side

[@jenna2431]

My number one reason it's hokum: an observant Jew would not have long hair. That is a violation of Torah. The Shroud figure has long hair which is a European invention.

[@theodoraa.pappas3109]

The evidence is quite questionable as to whether the Man of the Shroud exhibits long hair or not. There are STURP team members who have argued that this is just the appearance of a pony tail --but that it is a defect in the weave of the cloth. I'm not sure what the correct answer is --I have not delved into that particular issue much as I prefer to delve into the more important areas --such as the SCIENCE.

[@ancientfiction5244]

​​@@beverlyhurd8556 If Jesus is the "son of God", can you explain why he was a failed end times preacher? "Many passages attributed to Jesus have him predicting the end *within his generation* (“the time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of heaven is at hand. Repent and believe the good news” (Mark 1:15); *“this generation will not pass away* until all these things take place” (Mark 13:30); *“truly I say to you, you will not finish going through the cities of Israel until the Son of Man comes”* (Matthew 10:23); “Truly I say to you, *there are some of those who are standing here who will not taste death* until they see the kingdom of God after it has come with power.” (Mark 9:1); "From now on, you shall see the Son of Man coming in the clouds..." (Matthew 26:64))." Jesus as a failed apocalyptic prophet is the general consensus of critical scholarship, *even critical Christian scholars* like Dale Allison. The Son of Man (Jesus himself?) was supposed to be an end of the world arbiter, as Bart Ehrman points out in his lecture referenced below, and as the Bible states he was supposed to come *within the lifetime* of Jesus’s followers. *It didn't happen.* Read the article from the former Christian apologist and Tim O'Neill (former Christian), who has been studying the scholarship and history for decades, referenced below as well. *Jesus falsely prophesied his return in the 1st century* “Truly I say to you, ***you will not finish going through the cities of Israel until the Son of Man comes”*** (Matthew 10:23); For the *Son of man* shall come in the glory of his Father with his angels; ***and then he shall reward every man according to his works.*** Truly I tell you, ***some who are standing here will not taste death*** before they see the *Son of Man* coming in his kingdom Matthew 16:27-28 Truly I tell you, ***some who are standing here*** will not taste death before they see the kingdom of God Luke 9:27 Truly I tell you, ***this generation will certainly not pass away*** until all these things have happened Mark 13:30 The sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light; the stars will fall from the sky, and the heavenly bodies will be shaken. Then will appear the sign of the *Son of Man* in heaven. And then all the peoples of the earth will mourn when they see the *Son of Man* coming on the clouds of heaven, with power and great glory. And he will send his angels with a loud trumpet call, and they will gather his elect from the four winds, from one end of the heavens to the other. Truly I tell you, ***this generation will certainly not pass away*** until all these things have happened Matthew 24:29-34 There will be signs in the sun, moon and stars. On the earth, nations will be in anguish and perplexity at the roaring and tossing of the sea. People will faint from terror, apprehensive of what is coming on the world, for the heavenly bodies will be shaken. At that time they will see the *Son of Man* coming in a cloud with power and great glory. When these things begin to take place, stand up and lift up your heads, because your redemption is drawing near. When you see these things happening, you know that the kingdom of God is near. Truly I tell you, ***this generation will certainly not pass away*** until all these things have happened Luke 21:25-32 *Jesus promised to return over 2, 000 years ago and he still hasn’t.* Jesus and the angels never appeared from Heaven, the stars never fell from the sky, none of these things happened. Nothing he prophesied happened. ***Apologists can try to spin this, but the simple fact is that Jesus was either wrong or misquoted.*** According to the Bible that makes Jesus a false prophet or misquoted (and if Jesus is misquoted than the Bible is not inerrant or the word of God) How can we know when a message has not been spoken by the Lord? If what a prophet proclaims in the name of the Lord does not take place or come true, that is a message the Lord has not spoken Deuteronomy 18:21-22 *Jesus falsely prophesied to the high priest and the Sanhedrin* Jesus also falsely prophesied to the high priest and the Sanhedrin (assemblies of either twenty-three or seventy-one rabbis appointed to sit as a tribunal) You will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and ***coming on the clouds of heaven*** Matthew 26:64 Mark 14:62 Except the high priest and the Sanhedrin never saw Jesus sitting at the right hand side of God, or coming on the clouds of heaven, or any such thing. *Jesus falsely prophesied to Nathaniel* Jesus also falsely prophesied to Nathanael when he declared, “Rabbi, you are the Son of God; you are the king of Israel.” Jesus said, You believe because I told you I saw you under the fig tree. You will see greater things than that. He then added, ***“Very truly I tell you, you will see heaven open, and the angels of God ascending and descending on the Son of Man*** John 1:50-51 *Nathanael never saw any such thing. Neither did anyone else.* The following quote from Stephen L. Harris, Professor Emeritus of Humanities and Religious Studies at California State University- Sacramento, completes this point with a devastating argument. *Jesus did not accomplish what Israel’s prophets said the Messiah was commissioned to do:* He did not deliver the covenant people from their Gentile enemies, reassemble those scattered in the Diaspora, restore the Davidic kingdom, or establish universal peace (cf.Isa. 9:6-7; 11:7-12:16, etc.). Instead of freeing Jews from oppressors and thereby fulfilling God’s ancient promises-for land, nationhood, kingship, and blessing- *Jesus died a “shameful” death, defeated by the very political powers the Messiah was prophesied to overcome.* Indeed, the Hebrew prophets did not foresee that Israel’s savior would be executed as a common criminal by Gentiles, *making Jesus’ crucifixion a “stumbling block” to scripturally literate Jews.* (1 Cor.1:23) Watch *Jesus: Apocalyptic Prophet, Historical Lecture - Bart D. Ehrman* ------------------------------------------------------------------ Also, look up the following. *"End Times - Evil Bible .com"* *"The End of All Things is At Hand - The Church Of Truth"* *"ex-apologist: On One of the Main Reasons Why I Think Christianity is False (Reposted)"* *"ex-apologist: Notes: Assessing The Case for an Apocalyptic Jesus in Ehrman’s Jesus: Apocalyptic Prophet of the New Millennium"* *"Jesus the Apocalyptic Prophet - History for Atheists"* (Tim O'Neill is a former Christian and is familiar with most of the Biblical scholarship. He's been studying the scholarship and history for decades) *"Jesus’ Failed Prophecy About His Return - Black Nonbelievers, Inc."* Also, how cognitive dissonance possibly explains early Christianity. *“The Rationalization Hypothesis: Is a Vision of Jesus Necessary for the Rise of the Resurrection Belief?”* - by Kris Komarnitsky | Κέλσος - Wordpress

[@worldofenigma1]

@@ancientfiction5244 "and if Jesus is misquoted than the Bible is not inerrant or the word of God)" The New Testament (or what we call that now) was written by human beings, not God. I don't think it is said anywhere in it that it is 'inerrant' (a very man-made concept). I would say the only writings that were the 'word of God' would be the books of prophecy - from the prophets - basically parts of the Old Testament, perhaps plus the book of Revelation. The books by Moses could also have some authenticity because it is said that Moses had an actual encounter with God. Some of the other books of the Old Testament were more like accounts of some of the history of what has happened - chronicles of events of relevance. Most of the books of the New Testament were either letters (thought to have been written by Paul) or they are the Gospel books thought to have been written by Matt, Mark, Luke, John - in other words written by human beings, who I would assume might have at least tried to write down as accurately as they could remember what occurred. That doesn't mean they were written by God himself.

[@davidfarrar2454]

How is it that Hugh Farey can still believe in fairy tales!

[@ReasontoDoubt]

I haven't talked to him about it, but I'm pretty sure he isn't like a YEC or anything. Reasonable, skeptical people can still be religious imo

[@borneandayak6725]

Poor debunk. With this crap, i'm not convinced. Repent and come to Christ.

[@ReasontoDoubt]

Hugh is already a Christian, so that's 1 of 3 down 😄

[@jjbiano]

So a school teacher is debunking something that a NASA imaging experts and other international scientists think is authentic?

[@ReasontoDoubt]

First, someone working for NASA makes them great at space stuff, it doesn't give them relevant expertise in medieval artifacts. Doesn't make them wrong, but the fact they work for NASA doesn't make them right either. Second, if you're referring to STURP, they didn't conclude it was authentic (at least not in their peer reviewed work, I have no idea what they told their family at the dinner table)

[@jjbiano]

@@ReasontoDoubt Good point. If you prefer a historical perspective rather than a scientific one, there is a French historian by the name of Jean-Christian Petifils who has been studying the shroud for over 40 years. He's convinced it's authentic

[@ReasontoDoubt]

@jjbiano I haven't heard that name, I'll have to check them out

[@kidslovesatan34]

I had no idea Hugh is a Christian, assumptions stumped.

[@ReasontoDoubt]

Indeed, we may not agree with his theistic beliefs, but that doesn't make him any less a skeptic!

[@kidslovesatan34]

@@ReasontoDoubt I have interacted with Hugh before and known him as a sceptic and a civil and decent guy but learning that he is a Catholic and shroud skeptic blows my mind. As he holds a number of untenable supernatural beliefs I'm not sure I can agree with you about not making him any less of a skeptic, though. Like he's almost there..... P.S. though there was less of it in this video the other host was still flashing gang signs at times.

[@ReasontoDoubt]

I am of the opinion that a person can be reasonable, rational, and skeptical, and that doesn't preclude them believing in the supernatural. I think they're mistaken, of course, but reasonable people can disagree about things.

[@kidslovesatan34]

@@ReasontoDoubt He's a good man & so are you, it's just the other host flashing gang signs.

[@ReasontoDoubt]

The gang sign joke is getting pretty old

[@Bible-dw6kl]

Op just remember, God created you. Knowing you would go to HeII. And im glad He did. Get ready deviI. 😂

[@ReasontoDoubt]

There's no hate like Christian "love"

[@Bible-dw6kl]

@ReasontoDoubt Who said I love you. 😆 Yeah I won't hurt you for your beliefs cuz Vengeance and Judging is God's. But who said I "love" you. Fail. 💩

[@ReasontoDoubt]

I don't give a shit what you think of me. Jesus, however, commanded you to love your enemies. So...I guess he said so 😆 But hey why would you care what that fucking hippy thought, right? I mean, who is GOD to tell you how to live your life?

[@Bible-dw6kl]

@ReasontoDoubt Am I attacking you or doing any harm to you? You sound triggered and don't even know what Jesus meant by love your enemies. He means don't do stuff to harm them or don't do an eye for an eye. I won't touch you but I'm happy you're going to be Judged, deviI. Cry about it.

[@Bible-dw6kl]

@ReasontoDoubt God is Just and when He Judges a deviI like you I'm glad. You don't even know what Jesus meant by love your enemy or the context. It means don't harm them, and He taught against "an eye for an eye." I won't lay a finger on you, deviI don't worry. You don't even know the Bible. 🥱

[@righthand7965]

It's the real thing ❤

[@user-qy3un9ty1v]

Dear Hugh is very good a treating doubts, but he does not bring any original data. I am sorry, this is quite is useless video.

[@ReasontoDoubt]

I am sure there are others who are not as erudite as yourself and are unaware of the things that Hugh brought up

[@crazyviking24]

I hadn't actually heard about most of these problems with the shroud. Even as someone who is skeptical about the shroud I had been convinced that the injury pattern from the flogging was at least legitimate to the medieval period and was the result of someone who had been tortured in the middle ages.

[@kidslovesatan34]

It's a troll account, created the same day as the comment.

[@onlytruth6337]

It is better that shroud be not demonstrated, so who does not want to be christian, can be an antichristian. Nobody must be forced to go to Heaven. The Shroud must be only to people that want to be christian and go to Heaven, not for antichristian people or devils.

[@ReasontoDoubt]

It's not forcing people to do anything to give them information. People could be convinced of the reality of God and still choose not to worship them.

[@onlytruth6337]

@@ReasontoDoubt “Why[b] do you speak to them in parables?” 11 And he answered and[c] said to them, “To you it has been granted to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to those people it has not been granted. Believing the word of God (faith) is a merit, the only merit of Christians, because nobody is saved by his deeds. John sees the shroud in the tomb and believed. Other people sees the shroud and dont believe it. If everything is proven, Christians would no longer have the merit of the faith and even demons and antichristians could go to Heaven. Christian are saved by faith, if, without doubts and without faith, there is an absolute science, there is not faith. Obviously the Shroud is true and no scientist can say that is a fraud, but it is better that the knowlrdgr be only for christians... This is the way I think today.

[@ReasontoDoubt]

"I refuse to believe that the same God who endowed us with sense and reason intended us to forego their use" - Galileo

[@onlytruth6337]

@@ReasontoDoubt The human being has reason and has faith. There is not reason without faith and there is not faith without reason. John sees the empty tomb and the shroud, uses his reason, and had faith. The merit of john was his faith, not his reason. He did not need C14 or a proof of blood in the shroud. He knew that Jesus resurrected when he shaw the shroud. The reason is a biological factor that we have received (like our body), and the faith is a spiritual factor, the real soul. They are 2 different things and both are part of the human being. Nobody is saved by his intelligence or reason, but by his faith.

[@ReasontoDoubt]

@@onlytruth6337 Good for John. I prefer Thomas. I believe things for which I have sufficient evidence, and don't believe things for which I don't. If God wants me to believe he exists, all he has to do is provide evidence for that. Seems like a pretty reasonable thing to ask.

[@RealSeekers]

Well, well, well, not sure what to say about this one, I'm afraid. I suppose I will say that Hugh does indeed provide some valid facts and even conclusions in this show- some of which I'm sure would have been helpful to some people not invested in the details of Shroud research. However, I have to say I think that this show was heavily biased in one direction and Hugh I'm afraid kind of played to the audience a little bit in mischaracterizing the other side of some of these issues- I mean to pretend that Pro-Shroud experts just mindlessly believe en masse whatever they are told without thought and that Hugh is the only one who looks into these things is blatanly and provably false. I had originally planned to type up a detailed response and have other experts contribute, but I'm afraid some personal issues have kind of stolen my thunder away, that plus let''s just say that various experts and medical experts with real PhD's have really gone to town on Hugh's arguments about the anatomy and exposed some of the fallacious reasoning that apparently the Atheist audience below just eats up without any critical thought whatsoever- Hugh's a bright guy, but he is high school science teacher, so by all means consider his arguments, but don't blindly belive everything he says as though it is Gospel. Another disappointing thing for me, is Jordan and Jared in this episode as I had such high praise for them as critical thinkers looking into both sides of the debate, I'm afraid this time around it was a return to form of the first Shroud show they ever did- just by way of example, the 1 hour 13 min to 1 hour 15 min mark where Hugh colours on a Shroud relica bit of cloth and then turns it over and claims he replivated the Shroud's superficiality feature---- WHAT????, Did you guys really buy that????????????? You say you are skeptics, honestly guys, you know I love you and I still have a lot of respect for some of your prior shows where you put in the effort to do your best but in this show you have to do better, be skeptical of your skepticism- Hugh used a marker- did a medeival artist use that, no he didn't and Hugh says they are only on the top fibers and/or layer of the fibers- really, did I miss the part where you guys analyzed the photomicrographs to prove this assertion as we did with the Shroud- where is the peer-reviewed paper proving what Hugh said was true, all he demonstrated was mere macro-level superficiality which is relatively easy to demonstrate. Furthermore, just a question, I would have thought you guys would have asked about as skeptics- why is it ridiculous to think that wet paint would soak down into the lwer layers of the Shroud, afterall don't Shroud skeptics say the bloodstains were painted on as well, that does show up on the other side- Huh, these kinds of basic quesitons never even occurred to Atheists and Shroud skeptics- this is just one of the things Hugh said that even the smallest amount of scrutiny reveals it's not as straightforward as Hugh made things seem on the show in terms of disproving the Pro-Shroud side- it truly just seems the people in the comments below really do just want an easy excuse to disbelieve no matter what- "Hey Hugh seems pretty smart, let's just beleive anything and everything he says". Sorry for the negativity here, I had planned a more thorough review on all of the points, but personal issues and seeing the reactions below just kinda took my enthuiasm away at this time- I'm still a fan and will be watching future shows, but please just remember to be skeptical of your skepticism as well- try to be fair (or as fair as you can) in presenting these arguments- online Atheists have chosen to look to you for their information and so there is a responsibility to do your best work and regardless of whetehr I agree or not, I will always support anyone who does their best to seek the truth. God bless guys :) EDIT- And I just want to be clear that I'm not just reacting this way as I don't like what Hugh said, heck in terms of his main conclusions for 3 of the 4 topics on the Board, I agree with him entirely- we don't have an Roman flagrum that matches the Shroud that has been discoevered to date (in no way proves there wasn't one and Hugh's 2-3 illustrations do nothing to disprove the Shroud Man's scourges are inconsistent with a Roman flagrum), I also agree we are not able to prove the AB Blood type as of today- Kelly Kearse argues that quite well I think, and I agree that we should not use Max Frei's work to argue based on the pollen for a Jeruslam orign- though funny Hugh doesn't even address more recent and more credible studies in this show). His take on the hand wound was geuniely interesting and I didn't know about the angles issue, let's just say Hugh's claims have been throughly refuted by medical experts on SSG as we speak- with even visual proof- not allowed to share that as it is a private group, but yeah Hugh's claims are unprovable as the hand wound is not in the palm and no one with a PhD or M.D. agrees with Hugh, it is in the wrist and/or at the base of the hand not in the palm as Hugh claimed according to them.

[@ReasontoDoubt]

K

[@RealSeekers]

@@ReasontoDoubt Sounds good- just so I know, do you really agree with me- like with the marker and the hankey illustration, I mean Hugh's claim was something that only can be proved at a microscopic level, so it's not being a good skeptic to just believe him when he says it's only on the top fibers. Would you agree with that or am I just being a bit of a bugger?

[@hughfarey3734]

I would not wish to generalise, and certainly there are a few scholars who have made considerable efforts to get to the bottom of some of the uncertainties connected with the Shroud. Andrea Nicolotti has done far more work than I on scourges, for example, and Kelly Kearse, Arthur Lind and others, on the blood. However, as far as I know I was the first person to note the implications of the radiocarbon date getting younger as you get closer to the body, and the first, if not the only person, to have some "invisible weaving" actually carried out to find out if it was invisible or not (it isn't). I am certainly the only person to have researched Ricardo Levi-Setti's limestone spectra, and one of very few to research the length of Roman and/or Herodian cubits, the development of "Three Marys" iconography, Ray Rogers's equation for determining the decomposition of lignin, Pliny's account of the manufacture of linen (no, it wasn't hank-bleached) and so on. A year or so ago I wrote a posting on the first ten mistakes I found in popular presentations by Fr Robert Spitzer, Dr Wayne Phillips, Donald Noh and several other alleged experts, who had clearly done exactly what I claimed in the video above, and accepted alleged "facts" about the Shroud without question. So I'm certainly not pretending "that Pro-Shroud experts just mindlessly believe en masse whatever they are told without thought and that Hugh is the only one who looks into these things." In many cases, it's no more than the simple truth. Your second paragraph includes: "Various experts and medical experts with real PhD's have really gone to town on Hugh's arguments about the anatomy and exposed some of the fallacious reasoning..." Have they? Can you give a single example? Most recently, Dr McQuaid, whose credentials in forensic pathology are impressive, did not address my simple demonstration that the "wrist wound" is between the metacarpals and not in the "Space of Despot," and did not appear to know that other pathologists have suggested at least four alternative sites. To be fair, Andrew Silverman has taken some of my ideas seriously and suggested sensible alternatives, but he is a very rare example. Next, you didn't approve of my scribbling on a piece of "Shroud" and showing that the scribble did not reach the back. You distinguish between "macro" and "micro" investigation, but I wonder if you've ever asked yourself how we know that the image is only superficial? No piece of imaged thread has ever been looked at under a high-powered microscope. The only evidence is the photographs taken by Mark Evans in 1978, with a maximum magnification of x64. My own looking at my scribble at x400 through my own microscope, it is clear that the red felt tip is just as superficial, and does not penetrate either the thread or the fibres. You ask: "Why is it ridiculous to think that wet paint would soak down into the lower layers of the Shroud, after all don't Shroud skeptics say the bloodstains were painted on as well, that does show up on the other side?" and you suggest that "these kinds of basic quesitons never even occurred to Atheists and Shroud skeptics." But that's untrue. It has occurred to both skeptics and authenticists that the image and the blood are from different modes of colouration. The image is very lightly applied, the blood more fully. Sure, I can colour a cloth using my felt-tipped pen so that the ink does flow through to the other side, but, as you have seen, I can also colour it so that it doesn't. You conclude by claiming that some of my claims have been "thoroughly refuted." Well, that's fine, but nobody has told me how. Until evidence refuting any of my claims is presented, then I'll just stick to the evidence I've got, if that's OK!

[@RealSeekers]

@@hughfarey3734 Hi Hugh, I would respond to this but I'm afraid things are so mixed up behind the scenes right now with back and forths of what I can say or not say that I'm just ready to give up and let you have the day--- frankly I'm amazed you are even able to mention Dr. Andrew Silverman there as he was one of the ones I was referring to, but unfortunately that all has to be private as per the rules of SSG and whatnot- I think all this secrecy, while understandble, is sometimes a shame as it prevents people from sharing a good response to the skeptics claims for non-experts who need it. But yes, you challenged me to provide one example and you yourself gave one for me- Dr. Andrew Silverman is one who I had in mind as he has given you several responses with visuals and one that you yourself acknowledged yourself as a proper retort or alternative interpretation that maintains the Pro-Shroud position. Other than that, I dare not say more else I'm in danger of breaching confidentiality and so I'm just going to leave it to the Pro-Shroud experts that I'm referring to themselves going forward to post of their own accord if they choose to share what they know or not. Thankfully John Loken did give me permission to at least post up his one response there about the Roman flagrum. I do just want to respond to one thing you say as it was about my main point about the skeptics on here needing to be skeptical of their skepticism and since that is my own original point on here, I don't think I can get into any trouble by responding to it- you say the following; "Why is it ridiculous to think that wet paint would soak down into the lower layers of the Shroud, after all don't Shroud skeptics say the bloodstains were painted on as well, that does show up on the other side?" and you suggest that "these kinds of basic quesitons never even occurred to Atheists and Shroud skeptics." But that's untrue. It has occurred to both skeptics and authenticists that the image and the blood are from different modes of colouration. The image is very lightly applied, the blood more fully. Sure, I can colour a cloth using my felt-tipped pen so that the ink does flow through to the other side, but, as you have seen, I can also colour it so that it doesn't." Hugh, let's take the partisan stuff out of things for a moment, as you know I've just paid a very heavy personal price in order to stand up for your integrity out of friendship to you against some Pro-Shroud people who tend to think worse of you than I believe is warranted (no details obviously); but having done that I think it would mean a lot to me if you would back me up on this point--- your little demonstration did not speak to whether the top most fibrils alone were coloured by simply showing the back of the cloth-- the skeptics on this show did just eat it up and took you at your word on this without any proof whatsoever. Now, you say this thought has occurred to some Atheists and skeptics, well not on here it did and those were the Atheists and skeptics I was referring to in wanting to make my point about them needing to be more skeptical about the Shroud skeptics claim in addiiton to having a healthy skepticism about the Pro-Shroud side's arguments and claims. I think this showed a good brief and easy example that exposed a flaw in their reasoning and their bias to want to disbelieve in the Shroud by just waiting for anyone who sounds smart and knowledgable on the Shroud (as you are) and then just buying anything and everything you say without putting your claims to scrutiny in the same way they would my claims or any Pro-Shroud proponent's claims. That was the point of what I was saying in this quote, I'd really be grateful if you could just give me an Amen and say "Yes, please skeptics on here, try to be a bit more discerning in not just beleiving me or any other Shroud skeptic because I'm telling you what you want to hear"- look deeply into both sides before making up your mind. As you know, I do the same on my Real Seekers shows all the time by having you on to give the counter views, or I'll make sure to ask probing questions and challenges from the skeptics perspective and I've always told my audience to be Real Seekers and not just to believe what I or a guest says simply because we may be making a Pro-Shroud argument or claim. Neither of us should want to take on the role of inspired guru or look for Hero-worship, our role is to present the evidence as fairly as possible and then to inspire the fans to think critically on their own to make up their own minds on the matter. You yourself have affirmed this mission many times, so I think you would agree with me that the fan worship of you by the Atheists and Shroud skeptics in this show in particular must have been a little off-putting for you as I suspect you would prefer people to verify your claims for themselves and not just believe your word alone.

[@hughfarey3734]

@@RealSeekers I think I agree with that wholeheartedly. There are a couple of skeptical responses on this very podcast which are just as uncritical as any authenticist, and I absolutely request that nobody take my word for anything without checking my sources. After all, my sources are all I have; I'm not a doctor, theologian, art historian, textile expert or any of those things. My pictures of the nail positions, and my analysis of the Levi-Setti spectra must speak for themselves, otherwise, people should check out Nicolotti's paper on scourges, the British Museum's Roman scourge, Prudentius's Peristephanon, how to test for blood type and the shape of pollen, to name but a few, for themselves. As for the red felt-tip, I'll send you and Reason To Doubt a photo of the cloth through a microscope, and you, and all our readers, can judge its superficiality for themselves. After all, is my contention, the more you check all the possible sources, the more convinced you'll become that the Shroud is medieval!

[@adastra123]

Brilliant work there. I feel cheated by many of those presentations over the years with many scientists giving credibility to the shroud. I just assumed there was a Roman flagrum in some museum somewhere from which to compare the markings with. Also the very weak argument on the blood type assumption made by the pro shroud side. So far this argument is by far the most convincing. To my disappointment . But I am not angry at you folk at all. But I am a tad angry over the over zealous pro shroud folk not being honest with how weak the things they said actually are. They said things that do not stand scientific rigour. So , well done 👏 excellent presentation.

[@MrM-kz1so]

This was not very convincing at all.

[@ReasontoDoubt]

K

[@Archangel657]

The shroud is nothing more than a medieval artists representation that originated from western Europe.

[@MelEakins]

Good to know - what proof do you have of this?

[@JohnnyArtPavlou]

But the bilirubin due to stress that caused the blood to stay red. 🩸🩸🩸Just repeating an argument…