A History of the Shroud of Turin...but not THE history

In this episode Jordan responds to a recent video from Capturing Christianity where he interviews Guy R. Powell about the Shroud of Turin. This video covers the radiocarbon dating, the history of the Shroud from Jerusalem to France, and various other claims.
Correction: At 41:18 I say "A lot of [the beta particles] will be decayed". I meant to say that a lot of the beta particles will be ABSORBED (by the Shroud itself)
If you want to see more debunking on the Shroud, check out this playlist: • Shroud of Turin
Miracle debate w/ Dale (Real Seekers): • It's Not Rational to B...
Original ‪@CapturingChristianity‬ video: kzbin.infojpr4bMKA...
Interact with us:
Twitter: / pressx_todoubt
Facebook: / reason2doubt
Podcast: reason2doubt.podbean.com
Bluesky: bsky.app/profile/reasontodoub...
Spreadsheet with C14 calculations: docs.google.com/spreadsheets/...
Sources
Riani et al, "Regression analysis with partially labelled regressors: carbon dating of the Shroud of Turin", Stat Comput (2013) 23:551-561, DOI 10.1007/s11222-012-9329-5
Timestamps:
0:00 - Intro
1:38 - What to call people who believe in the Shroud
2:11 - Book summary
6:05 - Radiocarbon dating
17:02 - Coincidence of the Shroud's history
18:30 - Galatians 3:1 reference
20:20 - Difficulties in reconstructing history
23:45 - Image on the Shroud
30:11 - Radiation hypothesis
34:14 - Bob Rucker's neutron irradiation hypothesis
38:40 - Challenge to Shroud Researchers
45:28 - Summary
46:13 - Bias of the Day
#christianity #shroudofturin #atheism #history

[@hughfarey3734]

Hi Richard (Hunter)! The idea of redoing the calculations is splendid, but of course, the main problem with the authenticist viewpoint is that there was nothing wrong with them in the first place. The famous anomaly allegedly covered up by the British Museum and rediscovered by hyper-vigilant authenticists is a popular Shroudie trope unsubstantiated by the evidence, which is that it was clearly noticed, reported and published in the Nature paper in 1989. If there is an argument about the radiocarbon dating proportion, it is not that the anomaly exists, but how to account for it. Sensible suggestions include too small an error estimation on the part of one or more of the laboratories, or minor residual contamination related to different cleaning procedures. Neither of these alters the final date by more than a few years. More extreme ideas, determined to demonstrate a possible thousand year error, include deliberate fraud by the Catholic Church, deliberate fraud by the KGB, deliberate fraud by the British Museum, and deliberate fraud by [enter favourite conspiracy theory here]. It has also been suggested that the sample was sequentially contaminated, by surface grime or paint, by interpolated extra material, or by neutron radiation. The first is generally discredited by the fact that insufficient surface contamination to achieve a thousand year old error is detectable, and the second that "invisible" mending is not in fact, a thing. It disappoints me that even senior authenticists still quote the Frenway System of French Reweaving, which is demonstrably not invisible at all. Neutron radiation, the miracle hypothesis, has not been discredited (although it easily could be, as Jordan suggests), but it must be remembered that "not being demonstrated false" is not the same as "being demonstrated true."

[@richardhunter132]

this is it: the various objections to the carbon dating by authenticists are even contradictory with each other. they could redo the carbon dating again a hundred times and get the same result, and still there will be those who find fault with it

[@HarryNicNicholas]

@@richardhunter132 even if it was jesus blood, what would that prove? most people are happy to say jesus was a person, the shrouds were used to wrap dead bodies.

[@richardhunter132]

shrouds don't typically have the image of the bodies that they wrapped imprinted upon them. it wouldn't be conclusive, but if the shroud had been dated to the 1st century, it would be very, very strong evidence for the resurrection@@HarryNicNicholas

[@Hatasumi69]

That 3D image bunk comes from someone in the 70s converting it to a 3D image in a computer program and then not understanding that any image can be processed to give a 3D landscape. If it truly was encoded with 3D information, the image would be warped in a wrap-around manner so that we can see his inside his ears as though we were looking at the whole head at once in a flattened image.

[@hughfarey3734]

Hi Richard (Stanley)! Thanks for contributing with more consideration than most. However, if I may I'd like to inquire about your list of "largely undisputed" "facts" which "suggest that a 1300s fake is unlikely." I wonder why you have, in fact, not listed any facts, but only asked questions. One of your questions is "What caused the poker holes?" What was the fact that suggests a 1300s fake unlikely behind that question? Just that a cloth has holes in it? This may seem pernickety, but it makes me wonder how carefully you compiled your list. Two of your questions ask why the Shroud image has neither outlines nor brush strokes. Do you really think that all depictive artwork has outlines and brushstrokes? These specific two attributes were first brought up over 40 years ago, and betrayed not only a profound ignorance of artistic technique, but also a very narrow conception of how the Shroud must have been created if it was medieval. They are rarely mentioned by serious authenticists nowadays. As Jordan says, many of your questions (not facts) boil down to "if you can't say how it was made, it must be authentic," which is a very common, but wholly unconvincing argument to medievalists like myself. We have several very good ideas of how it was made, any one of which could be rapidly and convincingly confirmed by a better oriented investigation than was possible in 1978. Other "facts" are simply untrue. The Shroud image is easily discerned from a foot or two away, as is any large image of similar resolution, and it is notoriously unrealistic, such that a wide variety of distortions of the body or cloth or image mechanism have had to be devised in order to rectify it. The image most resembles a print from a bas relief, which is what I think it probably is. In your further responses, you pose several further questions, with the implication, if you don't my saying so, that they have not been considered by medievalists. You wonder why anyone might have been motivated to create the Shroud as he did, and suggest that his choices were "completely illogical." Have you read any of the literature which discusses these points? My own "The Medieval Shroud" paper (at academia.edu) explores them in detail, as does Gary Vikan's book "The Holy Shroud, A Brilliant Hoax in the Time of the Black Death." Both the motivation behind the artwork and the "illogical" choices are clearly explained.

[@sergehychko3659]

Who would have thought that ardent shroud supporters would enter the discussion? It must be a day with a "y" ending. Regardless; your skepticism is quite fair and taking on the substance rather than the person delivering it. Since I am not so inclined to placate to the rubes, I would respond, "Cool story, bro; it still doesn't prove zombie carpenter," to the statement that "the carbon dating is off."

[@goldenalt3166]

In fact, if true it more strongly supports some sort of spiritual reincarnation rather than a resurrection. I find it bizarre that believers take things that seem to superficially support their beliefs but contradicting the details as confirmation of both.

[@myoneblackfriend3151]

I made it to the end of the video. :) Your videos are usually great and this one does not disappoint.

[@ReasontoDoubt]

Awesome! Glad you liked it

[@richardhunter132]

my understanding about the carbon dating is that the dates that they obtained from the 16 samples that were tested are rock solid, but the statistics by which they got the final date range are not, so why can't they just redo the calculations and get a new date range? I would assume it would be simply a wider date range or else the same date range with a lesser degree of confidence. either way, it wouldn't be a date in the 1st century

[@spikespiegal2655]

I’m wondering the same… Why don’t we re-do the stastistic calculations correctly?

[@ReasontoDoubt]

Great question! So it's not as simple as they made a mathematical error which they could be fixed & then we get a newly correct answer. The mistaken math was that the dates were homogeneous and could be combined *while maintaining the 95% confidence interval*. The corrected math shows they are heterogeneous and cannot be. I'd bet you can lower your confidence interval to encompass all three, but how low that confidence would need to get below 95% I'm not sure. I'd have to do the math. If the issue isn't clear, here's an example that may be helpful. Imagine you and your friends measure a board. You measure it as 10 cm, +- 1 (so you can't be sure if it's 9 or 11 cm...you have a very bad ruler, lol). Your friends take measurements too, all about the same (maybe one is 10.5, one is 9.5). You could say that all three measurements agree within your margin of error, and so they each reinforce the other. Now imagine you did that same thing, but it turns out one of your friends measured 12.1, +-1. Well, now that result no longer agrees with the other two. Granted, it's not *that* far off, but it is still too far to just smash them together and call it good. You can't easily say whether you're right or they're right. You'd probably need to make more measurements, maybe with a new ruler (or better friends). Similar story here. The labs disagree in a way that isn't merely the normal margin of error between labs. It is not very far away from that normal margin (Walsh & Schwalbe indicate a difference in a fraction of just 0.7% of carbon from post 1700 that wasn't cleaned could explain the discrepancy), but the fact remains the error is there.

[@mikewalsh1402]

How the image of the man on the shroud was made is unknown. There are theories, and speculation, but nothing conclusive. It cannot be reproduced by today’s technology. Perhaps, one day, with advancements in science, a definite answer might be given, until then it remains a mystery.

[@ReasontoDoubt]

I'm not sure it's accurate that it "can't be reproduced by today's technology" but it is accurate that it has not yet been reproduced

[@mikewalsh1402]

@@ReasontoDoubt All that I have read from scientists who have studied the shroud, or have an interest in it, doubt that the technology exists to even attempt to reproduce an image like that on the shroud

[@calibri1182]

The Vatican doesn't allow a detailed analysis, so it remains a mystery (and therefore good for business)

[@mikewalsh1402]

@@calibri1182 The Vatican did allow a detailed analysis of the Shroud, by a team of scientists, in 1978!

[@RealSeekers]

Just a few points as I'm now at the 23 min mark; 1) I'm fine with Shroudie myself, but be aware that many Pro-Shroud experts do take that term to be a derogatory one so you may offend some if you call them that. 2) As to Galatians 3:1, I have to say that you are right about the majority of BIblical scholars and their interpretation of this verse however in this case I do think it is them who are stretching as Paul is very clear to my mind that he is talking about something being portrayed to their very eyes visually and so the metaphor or textual views seem very week to my mind. For what it is worth Larry Stalley is probably the single best expert on finding Shroud referenes in the Bible and he debated Dr. Ben Withinerington on my show Panel Review Show Part 5 on them (including Galatians 3:1)- Ben agreed with Larry against these interpretations, but he thinks Paul refers to the stygmata that he mentions in Galatians 6 somewhere. But good arguments on both sides of this one, I'm not sure where I stand on it myself yet. 3) I did agree that testimonial evidence for miracles comes with attached defeaters that make it so one ought to suspend judgement (at least in the presence of a detectable religion-authenticating context anyways) but I don't think these entail that we ought to disbelieve in the testimony esp. given there are sometimes defeater-defeaters that allow one to beleive the testimony of miracles. Obviously, I believe that the appearance to the "12" is a miracle and the evidence of that is testimonial in nature (in part at least) and so sometimes things like the historical criteria of authenticity or standards for reliability enable us to glean facts from testimony no matter how ancient it may be. But yes, I do agree that, even as a non-reductionist, one must not simply believe in the testimony of miracles without defeater-defeaters in the same way one simply believes in the testimony one gets directing them to the nearest Pizza Pizza store or something as the latter doesn't come with the same kinds of defeaters that need to in turn be defeated first b4 beleiving in the testimonial evidence.

[@RealSeekers]

Also yes I'd like to see your take on the Radiation theories and the experiments that have tested out radiation hypotheses as well.

[@ReasontoDoubt]

I apologize if I mischaracterized your opinion, I was trying to summarize it faithfully but if I overstated it that's my bad. There is a link in the description to the debate so the audience can keep me honest :)

[@RealSeekers]

@@ReasontoDoubt No worries, I didn't think you misrepresented me too much, just wanted to clarify what I was trying to say when I agreed with you about miracle testimony having some attached defeaters to reckon with.

[@larrypicard8802]

Most likely there never was a tomb. The tomb narrative was invented later to help with the resurrection belief.

[@RealSeekers]

@@larrypicard8802 Having surveyed all the arguments on both sides myself, I find the Empty tomb is a fact of history established on the testimonial evidence, however regardless on the explanatory level, I think there is at least one equally probable ordinary natural explanation for it.

[@LisaForTruth]

One thing they forget is that the whole image of a man was there, but one gospel says the facecloth was separate

[@nopainnogain3345]

This may not be related to the video but itself but I was wondering what is your thought on James Ossuary? It obviously doesn’t support that Jesus was god. But i was just curious.

[@ReasontoDoubt]

I haven't looked a lot into it, but I did read Tabor's book about it. From just that book, it struck me as something that would be neat if true, but kind of a stretch.

[@beorbeorian150]

It was thrown on a sculpture and paint, blood , whatever was used to create the image. Not very complicated. And everything about the shroud points to this. The dimensions, the pose, everything.

[@robertbissett]

1. TOP OF HEAD MISSING - Some say the body was laid on the cloth and the cloth then folded over the top of the body and nothing more. Others say the practice at the time was to go further tucking the upper portion of the cloth under the sides of the body, pulling the lower portion up all around and wrapping it all with strips of cloth. Body position is thought to be laying flat on the back or on the stomach or on the back with knees bent and the head leaning forward. For all these variations images can be found. The cloth covered the front and back of the body including the head, front, back and top. But we see no image of the top of the head, only a blank area with a water stain. 2. CRANIUM TOO SMALL - The homo sapien skull has well known proportions. With a line drawn through the eyes dividing the face in half, the distance from the chin to the center of the eyes is the same as the distance from the center of the eyes to the top of the head. In a CAD program the imported image of the shroud can be set to the actual dimensions, 14' 3" long. Then the face can be measured. We find that the distance from the eye to the top of head is an inch less than to the chin. 3. FACE TOO NARROW - Also in the CAD program we find that the face is about 5 1/4" wide. The average width of a male head is 6-7 inches. 4. SHROUD RECREATED - The often repeated claim that no one has ever been able to explain how the image on the shroud was created, even with modern scientific advanced technology. Therefore, since the image defies all rational explaination it must be miraculous. But, in fact, the shroud has been recreated very convincingly by Luigi Garlaschelli using low tech methods available in the middle ages . Published in J. Imaging Sci. and Technol., 54 (4) 2010. 5. 3D EFFECT - The claim is made that the image on the shroud contains three dimensional topographic quality. A VP8 Image Analyzer was able to convert the two dimensional image to a three dimensional image which is said to be highly unusual and that no other photo does this. This is often regarded as part of the imagined miracle. Using Sketchup Pro with the Bitmap to Mesh extension, giving both the shroud and the recreated images the same treatment, both converted to 3D images successfully.

[@kevinkingmaker7395]

'Shroudie' sounds a bit derogatory. Perhaps 'Shroudist'? I would like to see a video on the actual history of the Shroud, for example the chain of custody from Jesus' resurrection to the 14th Century. One of the strongest arguments against the Shroud's authenticity is the weak historical evidence for it prior to the 14th C. One would expect a greater paper trail for the greatest religious artifact on earth that is hard physical evidence of the resurrection. Shroudists often conflate the Shroud with earlier religious artifacts; it would be interesting to see these claims examined in detail.

[@ReasontoDoubt]

*shrug* Guy Powell, who supports the authenticity of the Shroud, seemed to think that Shroudie was fine. If they're fine with it, I'm fine with it.

[@victorbrown3032]

I once saw a video where they demonstrated an ability to create a shroud using a “photographic” technique that would have been possible in the beginning days of the shroud. Techniques that may have been known by the likes of Leo Divinci. Unfortunately, that video was many years ago and not seen since.

[@henkvandergaast3948]

Whats wrong with flax, just the flax?

[@les2997]

The carbon dating test was in fact invalid due to sampling errors (Ray Rogers).

[@ReasontoDoubt]

The carbon dating was flawed, but is not invalid and can still give us useful information sufficient to conclude the Shroud likely isn't 1st century. See these videos where I go into more detail: kzbin.info/www/bejne/fWXceaZsfs91fLM kzbin.info/www/bejne/rp_KcoyarKamga8

[@les2997]

@@ReasontoDoubt The raw data is heterogenous and the sample contained cotton fibers as a result of medieval repairs.

[@ReasontoDoubt]

I address both of those concerns in the video. The data was very slightly heterogeneous, but not enough to invalidate a conclusion of "not first century". It is plausibly explained by slightly better cleaning procedures at Oxford compared to the other two labs. The "cotton fibers" were microscopic specks of cotton consistent with linen fiber being woven on a loom that also wove cotton. They were not full threads or patches indicative of repairs.

[@les2997]

@@ReasontoDoubt Search: "Studies on the radiocarbon sample from the shroud of turin" "The radiocarbon sampling area is uniquely coated with a yellow-brown plant gum containing dye lakes. Pyrolysis-mass-spectrometry results from the sample area coupled with microscopic and microchemical observations prove that the radiocarbon sample was not part of the original cloth of the Shroud of Turin. The radiocarbon date was thus not valid for determining the true age of the shroud."

[@ReasontoDoubt]

I'm aware of Rogers' work. Others have responded to it, and it does not appear that his conclusion that the sample was not original to the Shroud is supported by the evidence. For some responses, see these two papers: Bella, Marco, et al. “Comments on the analysis interpretation by Rogers and Latendresse regarding samples coming from the Shroud of Turin.” Thermochimica Acta, 2016 (not published), dx.doi.org/doi:10.1016/j.tca.2016.03.014. Bella, Marco, et al. “There is no mass spectrometry evidence that the C14 sample from the Shroud of Turin comes from a "medieval invisible mending."” Thermochimica Acta, no. 617, 2015, pp. 169-171, dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tca.2015.08.002.

[@mjt532]

Let's call Shroud believers "Towelies." Has that name been taken?

[@dco1487]

you're a towel

[@christophernodvik1057]

Interested in deep dive on my adiation that is radiation

[@ReasontoDoubt]

Noted!

[@davidofoakland2363]

C14 Carbon beta decay: how would you account for background radiation?

[@ReasontoDoubt]

Ideally you would try to shield as much background radiation as you could, but you'd just take measurements away from the cloth and any other source for long periods of time to get a measurement of background. Then you'd just subtract that background from future measurements.

[@henkvandergaast3948]

No.. samples are taken and prepped in labs. Background is irrelevant@@ReasontoDoubt

[@ReasontoDoubt]

@@henkvandergaast3948I believe @davidofoakland2363 was referring to my proposed Geiger counter test of Bob Rucker's hypothesis, not C14 dating performed in labs. For C14 dating in labs, they typically use AMS these days, not counting methods so background wouldn't matter. If they did use a counting method for whatever reason you'd still need to account for background, though.

[@Nocturnalux]

The irony is, even if this was the shroud of Jesus, it’d still be a piece of linen.

[@ReasontoDoubt]

It would be a very cool piece of linen though!

[@Nocturnalux]

@@ReasontoDoubt Sure, but you’d think the creator of the universe could have done better than leave behind a shroud. Now, if it had actual magical properties, that would be interesting. Wave it around and it cures all disease, no exceptions, always; apply it to a dead person and they come back to life, that kind of thing. Even something less impressive, like it wouldn’t burn no matter what you did; you couldn’t cut, dye, or in any way alter of destroy it. Instead it’s just…there, I guess.

[@calibri1182]

Well, in that case, if there's blood there could be dna, and then, you know...

[@Nocturnalux]

@@calibri1182 Shroud proponents do not seem that thrilled with that idea.

[@alancook4407]

How could you thrust a spear head through the right side of the chest direct to the heart without other damage to the ribs the truth is it was not there were the spear entered

[@kneelingcatholic]

👍👍👍 40:00 and further nice work!!!

[@ReasontoDoubt]

Thanks! Now we just have to convince the pope!

[@kneelingcatholic]

@@ReasontoDoubt, you seem like a scientist(I'm NOT) but I was just thinking....for a field expedient 1) bring a similar piece of modern linen and geiger count it 2) sneak the geiger counter up to the same distance from the Shroud if the Shroud count drops off... (?) 🙁 Rucker's theory disproved if the Shroud count noticeably increases.... Sneak back out (don't tell anyone) and start writing your BOOK!!!($$$!!!)

[@ReasontoDoubt]

@kneelingcatholic I'm an engineer, so more of a science enthusiast lol But honestly that's not far removed from what you'd do. Of course you couldn't get close enough to get a measurement stealthily. If it were behind glass or anything that would block all the beta particles. A t shirt can shield from those

[@kneelingcatholic]

@@ReasontoDoubt , last comment, I promise!! curiousitywise.... if you had access to a huge(>200 yr old) oak cross-section... could a geiger counter detect a delta as you move from outer to inner rings?

[@ReasontoDoubt]

That's a good question. I am not an expert on plant biology, but my guess is almost certainly no, because the entire plant was still alive that entire time, so the cells would be respirating and therefore taking in radioactive carbon. Perhaps if a portion of the tree died and some more lived on, maybe? But even then the difference would probably be too slight to be detected.

[@diemwing]

is it even physically possible to get a carbon date in the future? 🤔

[@ReasontoDoubt]

Sure, if one of the assumptions of the C14 testing is violated. In this case, that the source of C14 came from the atmosphere that the biological material interacted with. We could make stuff "date" into the future if we wanted to...all that's required is that it has some N14 and we have a source of neutrons. If you throw neutrons at N14, some of them are going to turn into C14. Now, is this likely to be an actual thing that happened in the 1st century? No. But all things are possible through Jesus I guess

[@hughfarey3734]

Hi, diemwing. No, of course it isn't. However, if it is true (which it roughly is) that the smaller the proportion of carbon-14 to carbon-12 in dead biomass, the older it is, then a simple extrapolation of the proportion/age regression line into the future will produce a "date in the future" for material with an unusually high proportion of carbon-14 to carbon-12.

[@les2997]

Medieval artists, or any artists of their time, did not possess the technology necessary to create an image like the one on the Shroud of Turin on a microscopic level. Here's why: Microfibers and Resolution: The image on the Shroud resides on the microscopic level, embedded within the individual fibers of the linen cloth. Medieval art techniques, even the most advanced painting or drawing methods, lacked the resolution and precision to manipulate individual fibers at such a scale. Heat and Pressure: Some theories propose scorching or burning the Shroud to create the image. However, achieving the level of detail and uniformity seen on the microscopic level without damaging the surrounding fibers would be impossible with medieval heating technologies. Chemical Processes: Other theories involve chemical treatments to create the image. However, medieval chemistry lacked the sophisticated understanding and control necessary to manipulate individual microfibers precisely and without degrading the linen itself. Technological Gap: The gap between medieval technology and the microscopic manipulation required for the Shroud image is vast. No known artistic technique or scientific knowledge of the time could achieve such a feat.

[@ReasontoDoubt]

I've responded to all these already. If you're going to raise objections, at least raise interesting ones.

[@les2997]

@@ReasontoDoubt You never responded because there is no good response. The Shroud of Turin remains a mysterious and debated artifact, and there's no consensus on its origin or the nature of the image. The raised points about the challenges of reproducing the Shroud's image with medieval technology are still valid.

[@ReasontoDoubt]

@@les2997 I don't know how many times I have to say this, but evidently it's at least one more time: "We don't know how it was made" does not equal "Therefore we DO know and it was magic" Let me repeat it a few more times: "I don't know" does not equal "magic" "I don't know" does not equal "magic" "I don't know" does not equal "magic" "I don't know" does not equal "magic" "I don't know" does not equal "magic" "I don't know" does not equal "magic" Hopefully that helps

[@les2997]

@@ReasontoDoubt The absence of a comprehensive naturalistic explanation for the Shroud of Turin does indeed open the door to the possibility of a supernatural origin, a point that cannot be dismissed outright. Furthermore, in the absence of a clear understanding of how the enigmatic image on the shroud was formed, it becomes intellectually honest to refrain from asserting that it was deliberately fabricated. Presently, there is a lack of evidence supporting the notion that a medieval artist possessed the capabilities to convincingly simulate the Shroud. The absence of concrete proof of forgery, coupled with the acknowledged uncertainty surrounding the technological feasibility of a medieval artist crafting such an image, underscores the importance of exercising caution in categorically labeling the Shroud as a deliberate forgery. Without substantive evidence, such claims may be deemed speculative and disingenuous.

[@ReasontoDoubt]

@@les2997 I have said, at least half a dozen times to you specifically, that I do not know how the image was made. How many times do I need to say it before you'll hear it? Repetition got through once, let's try it again. I do not know how the image was made. I do not know how the image was made. I do not know how the image was made. I do not know how the image was made. I do not know how the image was made. What I *do* claim to have good evidence for is that the artifact isn't from the first century, which means it never wrapped Jesus. Perhaps a deity, in their infinite wisdom, decided to make this icon 14 centuries after the fact, but I see no reason to conclude that without significant evidence that such a deity exists in the first place. That is, has been, and shall remain the only claim I'm making, no matter how much you try to put other claims on my lips. If anyone here is disingenuous and intellectually dishonest, it's you.

[@ansfridaeyowulfsdottir8095]

01:53 _"Shroud Authenticists"_ ? So, kind of like _"Ancient Alien Theorists",_ then? 🤣 {:o:O:}

[@richardstanleyjr1455]

Jordan, Thanks for another very good episode on the Shroud. I do believe skeptics are a very important part of this research, and like always you present the skeptical view very fairly and respectfully. And thanks for the invitation at the end about additional Shroud topics, which I'll take you up on in my comments below. First, you did a surprisingly good job on a book that I don't personally think is very valuable and I'm not planning to spend my time on Guy Powell's book. I've heard about his book elsewhere and a partial fictional story on the Shroud is just not interesting to me. Real facts and real hypotheses are much more interesting to me. In that vein, here are two fairly recent books that I have not read but do intend to read when I get to them, and they were written by people I consider to be much more serious Shroud researchers. One is by Jack Markwardt entitled The Hidden History of The Shroud of Turin (2021) and another is by Michael Kowalski entitled The Shroud of Christ: Evidence of a 2,000 Year Antiquity (2023). I would be very interested in what you think about these books. Second, I'll give you credit again for a serious and well thought through criticism of Rucker's hypothesis (even though there's a small chance that he might be right). He's not the only one who's proposed this hypothesis, but he's carried it the furthest. Although you and I are on opposite sides of the authenticity debate, I agree with you that I'd love to have this hypothesis tested so it can be discarded if it's wrong. However, it's unlikely that your wish will come true anytime soon because this hypothesis has been out there for more than 20 years with no movement to actually test it. Third, as to your criticism about the argument that "we don't know how it was made", your comments are fair as to that very narrow point, but there is much more to this particular issue than that simplistic argument. I have put together my own personal list of facts about the Shroud, which I believe are largely undisputed, and that I believe suggest that a 1300s fake is unlikely. Most of these facts can be explained away individually by someone who doesn't believe the Shroud is authentic but it seems to me that all of these facts together make a 1300s fake very improbable. Maybe you could start addressing these facts. 1) Why doesn’t the image look artistic? Why does it look so realistic? 2) Why isn’t the image made with paint or dye? 3) Why are there no discernable brush strokes? 4) Why is the image only discernable from a distance (e.g., 6 feet)? 5) Why is there both a front and back image? 6) Why is he naked without a loincloth? 7) Why is the visible nail wound in the wrist? 8) Why are there no outlines to the image? Why do the edges of the image fade in proportion to the distance from the body? 9) Why do additional details become visible with image enhancement techniques? 10) How were the fibers singed or prematurely aged to form the image? 11) Why was real blood used (tests do not conclusively prove it is human blood but cow, pig and horse blood have been disproven)? 12) Why were two different methods used to make the body image and the blood marks, as compared to using the same method but with two different pigments, e.g., yellow (body image) and red (blood)? 14) Why weren’t multiple copies made? 15) Why are there no other examples of similar works of art in history (in particular, medieval art)? 16) What caused the poker holes? 17) Why does the blood penetrate through the cloth but the image does not? 18) Why are the thumbs missing from the body image? Fourth, why don't you tell us what hypothesis you have for how the Shroud was made in the 1200-1300s? I'll give you some help. My view (and I'm not presenting myself as an expert) is that the body image was most likely caused by heat (not radiation, at least directly). If my hypothesis is correct, it doesn't actually answer whether it is fake or authentic. But if I'm right, the most likely way that it would have probably been made in the 1300s is using a bas-relief statue that was heated to about 200 degrees Celsius. However, this hypothesis has a number of weaknesses, which I'll leave it up to you to figure out. Thank you for your interest in this topic and the manner in which you treat it. Rich

[@ReasontoDoubt]

To be clear, I don't know if the Shroud was made by an artist or not. I'm going to answer as if it WAS an artist working with some technique, but again, I don't know if that's true. 1) Why doesn’t the image look artistic? Why does it look so realistic? - Art sometimes looks realistic 2) Why isn’t the image made with paint or dye? - Because the artist chose not to work with paint or dye 3) Why are there no discernable brush strokes? - Because the artist didn't use brush strokes, at least not in an easily discernable fashion 4) Why is the image only discernable from a distance (e.g., 6 feet)? - Because it is VERY faint, and the human brain works hard to smooth out that sort of noise. It's only when you stand further back that the brain realizes there is a broader pattern. 5) Why is there both a front and back image? - Because the cloth, if it were wrapped along a body, would have touched the front & back of the body. 6) Why is he naked without a loincloth? - Because sometimes (not often, but not never) is depicted naked. See my Allen Parr video. 7) Why is the visible nail wound in the wrist? - Because Jesus was crucified, and this is a depiction of Jesus. 8) Why are there no outlines to the image? Why do the edges of the image fade in proportion to the distance from the body? - Because not all art includes outlines 9) Why do additional details become visible with image enhancement techniques? - Because image enhancements make things look clearer. The cloth is, at best, 700 years old and hasn't exactly been kept in ideal conditions that whole time. 10) How were the fibers singed or prematurely aged to form the image? - I don't know 11) Why was real blood used (tests do not conclusively prove it is human blood but cow, pig and horse blood have been disproven)? - I believe tests have suggested it is probably primate blood, and humans are the most common primates. As to why use real blood...why not? It's not exactly hard to find. 12) Why were two different methods used to make the body image and the blood marks, as compared to using the same method but with two different pigments, e.g., yellow (body image) and red (blood)? - Because the artist chose to apply the blood in a different way from the image itself. 14) Why weren’t multiple copies made? - I don't know. Reasons could include: There WERE other copies, but only one survives; It was really tough and took a long time; If you want to claim that this thing is the authentic burial cloth of Jesus, having extras won't help your case; etc. Again, I don't know which (if any of these) are correct 15) Why are there no other examples of similar works of art in history (in particular, medieval art)? - Define similar. 16) What caused the poker holes? - Fires in the buildings that the Shroud was kept in. Molten silver dripping from the case the Shroud was kept in burned through the cloth 17) Why does the blood penetrate through the cloth but the image does not? - Because whatever technique used to make the image does not penetrate the cloth, but the blood soaked through 18) Why are the thumbs missing from the body image? - Because the artist chose to arrange the hands in such a way as to make the thumbs not visible. Sometimes artists do that. Most of these questions seem to boil down to "Well, if *I* was the artist I'd have done it a different way" which...cool, but you weren't the artist. Some artists work in chalk on pavement. Some make sand sculptures with spoons. Some make immensely detailed pictures using just a pencil. Are there easier ways to do those things? Absolutely. Artists don't always do the easiest thing.

[@richardstanleyjr1455]

Ok, Jordan I hope you're not a ChatGPT robot because those responses don't seem anymore intuitive than what a computer algorithm could come up with. The questions are not directed to whether someone could satisfy those features; they are directed to the likelihood that ANY artist in the 1300s would have made something like this. I'm asking about the logic of these things, the motivation, why the artist would have made these choices versus more likely or common choices. Sure, I agree that someone in the 1300s could have made a cloth with these features if he chose to, but what was going through this person's mind (i.e., a real human mind as opposed to a robot) to cause him to make completely illogical choices like this? It certainly wasn't because he wanted to create something so confusing that we would still be debating it 700 years later.

[@ReasontoDoubt]

​@@richardstanleyjr1455 If you want better answers, ask better questions. //"[what caused him to] make completely illogical choices like this?// Have you ever *met* an artist? This is a serious question. It does not sound like you have, because you seem to be under the belief that an artist, when choosing to create something, will always choose the most straightforward, simple way to create that, using the easiest and simplest method possible. Some artists do that. And some artists make hyper realistic graphite sketches or work only by using dots with a bic pen or whatever. If you want to know why an artist chooses X medium over Y medium, you'd have to ask them. Sadly, I doubt we'll get the chance with this one. If the Shroud was made by an artist I do not think we will ever know what their motivations were. There are plenty of plausible motivations that fit with what we know about humans generally and artists in particular, but it is impossible to know what they actually were.

[@historyforatheists9363]

In addition to some of Jordan's answers: 1. It's not actually "realistic" in several key respects. The proportions of the head and face, for example, fit the unrealistic and stylised proportions we find in gothic art of the later Middle Ages, but don't actually match human anatomy. The hands are crossed discreetly over the genitals (see below) in a manner that preserves modesty, but in a position that can't be held by a corpse. And key aspects of the image fit medieval and Byzantine iconography, but not what we know about first century Jews. The latter tended to wear their hair short, which is not something a medieval artist would know. The image, of course, has the longish hair dictated by the artistic conventions of the time. So not "realistic". But nicely medieval. 6. Medieval depictions of Jesus often included him naked and without a loin cloth in scenes where this makes sense. So depictions of his baptism by John often had a naked Jesus. More relevantly here, depictions of the Deposition - taking the body of Jesus off the cross - also often did so. In both cases his genitals were usually discretely covered by his hands. Which is ... exactly what we see on the "Shroud" image (and see above why that is not actually realistic).

[@richardstanleyjr1455]

Ok, I'll give the two of you credit for at least trying. It's not very persuasive to me, but at least it's an effort to explain what would have caused an artist to make something like the Shroud.

[@balkanbaroque]

You wish😂it has lots of evidence at this point you’re not skeptical you’re blind

[@ReasontoDoubt]

Nuh uh

[@ReasontoDoubt]

Good job using "you're" correctly though, S tier commenter

[@ebmmbe2149]

Have you interviewed any credible scientists? Like the ones that actually studied it🤔

[@ReasontoDoubt]

I've done the next best thing: Read their peer reviewed findings!

[@ebmmbe2149]

Ok, so is that a yes or no? I also read the peer reviewed findings! That's why I'm here🤷‍♂️ What ONE thing about the shroud leads you to believe someone ( smartest person on planet earth to pull that off btw) faked this between 1260 1390 AD😐 🤔

[@ReasontoDoubt]

@ebmmbe2149 The carbon dating, though flawed, is sufficient to show it isn't 1st century which is all that's needed to show it isn't authentic. I don't know how the image was made.

[@dco1487]

you should do some UFO stuff pick up some subs, you put a lot of work into this for 1,200. 57k views with 90 videos. You have a decent scientific approach to things

[@ReasontoDoubt]

Our best performing videos tend to be religiously oriented (especially Shroud of Turin or Mythicism), but we like to mix it up with other stuff to keep it fresh for us. Glad you enjoyed our other work though! We enjoy making it

[@ericcraig3875]

Ahhh the "Atheist" jesus apologists who claim that the NT is a history book and theologians are historians. Go tee shirt bowtie dude.

[@ReasontoDoubt]

Amazing. Every word of that statement was wrong.

[@ericcraig3875]

@@ReasontoDoubt what was your evidence again for your beliefs in your historical jesus? Tell me again, besides people agreeing with you. You ran from the last conversation. Do you have a video explaining your blind beliefs? What I would really love is evidence for a historical paul first, then jesus, and then why you believe that any NT books were written 1st century when no 1st century manuscripts exist. What books in the entire bible do you believe are not anonymous and why?

[@goldenalt3166]

​@@ericcraig3875The books that are not anonymous are the ones that say who is writing them.

[@ReasontoDoubt]

@@ericcraig3875 As I recall, I told you I was no longer interested in engaging with you on that thread because I have a life that includes touching grass and having sex with girls. To answer your questions: - If you want my answers, go read the last thread. - I have no blind beliefs on this topic. If you want my beliefs on mythicism, see our mythicist content. - In the NT, the books written by Paul (Gal, Romans, 1 & 2 Cor, Philemon, Philippians, 1 Thess) are not anonymous. I got this information from critical NT scholars, who know far more about the topic than I do.

[@ericcraig3875]

@@goldenalt3166 which ones out of 66?

[@BlueboyIvyandRubythedogs.]

the shroud is real the shroud was caused by a very supernatural light from Yeshua there were 2 roman guards watching the tomb of Yeshua and there was the light Praise Yeshua Amen

[@simonorton]

'Shroud' - Turin. 'Strips of Linen' - The Bible. On the most basic level - it's fake.

[@dijahsyoutubechannel]

so we don’t know how it was made but we also know conclusively that it was caused by supernatural light?