Dr. Falk responds to Cameron Bertuzzi regarding the Shroud of Turin

[@morlewen7218]

"The truth of our faith becomes a matter of ridicule among the infidels if any Catholic, not gifted with the necessary scientific learning, presents as dogma what scientific scrutiny shows to be false." Thomas Aquinas

[@ancientegyptandthebible]

True. Aquinas was a smart guy.

[@lohikaarmeherra-1753]

Yeah, well, Aquinas’s problem was ”putting man’s knowledge before the word of god.” 🤭

[@samueljennings4809]

@lohikaarmeherra-1753 I actually would argue that this isn’t ENTIRELY true. He was a deep thinker and philosopher but I do believe that he was a sincere Christian who held Scripture to the highest regard.

[@2anthranilicacid]

@@samueljennings4809 I would propose that he never meant his works to be the all-encompassing truth as which they are presented today, but that he was just doing his best. After all, he did say that everything he had written was nothing but straw...

[@lohikaarmeherra-1753]

@@samueljennings4809 and I was taught philosophy is evil and leads you away from christ. 🤭

[@shmanuyah_2024watch]

Great to hear sanity and logic brought to this topic - as opposed to conjecture by those that aren't even qualified!

[@tylerx099]

I use to watch Cameron’s videos awhile back, but lately I notice he’s been posting really wild stuff

[@Dht1kna]

Exorcism stuff?

[@tylerx099]

@@Dht1kna yeah sort of, but when he started talking about the viral trump prophet and then calling a Christian hotline as an atheist is when I noticed that he went off the rails on what is channel was originally intended for.

[@anyanyanyanyanyany3551]

@@tylerx099 I think someone (maybe Twitter or YT) mentioned that Cameron started doing more pop apologetics and culture stuff that would appeal to a larger audience instead of more focused and narrowed discussions on a particular subject because he wasn't getting enough views.

[@tylerx099]

@@anyanyanyanyanyany3551 oof. Yeah I just unsubscribe to him when he started doing all that. But even then I wasn’t watching all of his stuff recently

[@deadalivemaniac]

@@anyanyanyanyanyany3551his stuff on apologetics is really bad.

[@maremare1655]

I appreciate this Video as being well above Bertuzzi's. I've never seen the Shroud of Turin in person in all my 64 years however I know of it through various media and news outlets over the decades. I appreciate this video for your reasoned, calm, educated and professional analysis of the scientific process and theory and principals of the three different testing dates. It's an interesting topic and as you have shown there is much to consider regarding the reliability of overzealous flawed scientific reasoning and literature. I'm 64 y/o RC and the Shroud is an interesting part of Church History and veneration, however, as a RC we are not obliged to accept any belief in it being the authentic burial cloth of Jesus. I'm very glad to see you and Metatron respectfully and intelligently refuting errors where truth should be told. ⭐.

[@WhatYourPastorDidntTellYou]

Thanks for doing this Dr. Falk!

[@Crimsonlupus]

Bros trying to cosy up like nothing happened 🤣

[@WhatYourPastorDidntTellYou]

@@Crimsonlupus Or maybe I’m just thankful for a helpful video?

[@Crimsonlupus]

Make a stick figure about it

[@JohnBaskette]

I appreciate a lot your scholarly contributions, much needed in the church. I think Cameron does some very good popular apologetics work, so I hope you both can be friends and work together on issues on which you agree. I also wish Cameron was more like Michael Jones who listened to you on issues regarding the Exodus and course corrected.

[@PhrenicosmicOntogeny]

"They did it wrong, but they talked about potentially doing it right later" is not a great defense.

[@ancientegyptandthebible]

No, it isn't. 😬

[@ArielManxx]

Exactly!! this is not how good studies are done, in my language we call this 'to fart in a puddle'😅

[@ReverendElation]

Carmen dives deeper into his tub of hair gel than proper scholarly criticism. I think it's great for the body when Dr Falk black pills the conversation so people can judge with good defenses of both sides of an issue. Sometimes right, like in this case, and sometimes wrong, as in doubting the ancient Jewish view of the giants/sons of God concept through the first century... No matter how he comes out, it's awesome to have the good Dr. F and may he and his fam be blessed!

[@ArielManxx]

LOL I have yet to see a good scholar with a coiffure as fancy, it's always either one or the other, eh?

[@ReverendElation]

@@ArielManxx haha I'm working on mine....

[@daniellowry660]

Really happy to see this back and forth. As a lay person these types of interactions over papers is really valuable because so often a paper will get published no one with expertise will interact with it and it will be extremely difficult for a layperson to evaluate it on their own. Wish it was someone other than Cameron defending the actual paper but perhaps that will come in the future. Once again thank you for your detailed and serious response dr. falk. Sadly the shroud is often subject to sensationalist analyses from both defender and critic alike. Your adding some much needed balance to the discussion.

[@michaels7325]

That music though. Thats quite the intro

[@ancientegyptandthebible]

Velocirabbit.

[@Fluffysweep]

Great video, I was very suspicious of the 2000 yrs claim, but did not know anything about Waxs. Thanks to you, I realised I was right to be cautious about it.

[@TestifyApologetics]

Apologists: let go of the shroud. We have good evidence that laymen can understand in the Gospels. There's too much smoke with the shroud bad pun intended and it's beyond laymen to really assess imo

[@antoniotodaro4093]

My man, Testify

[@bc4yt]

Totally agree. I think the shroud us a trap, a rug pull in waiting. What happens to the people who believe based on this, when some evidence comes to light that it absolutely isn't what people think it is? Their faith will be shook, exactly what the devil wants. Same thing happens with fundamentalist evangelicals who grow up being force fed certain theological positions that are debatable at best, tenuous as worst, then they arrive at college and their faith collapses at the first challenge. We need to build on solid foundations. None if the early martyrs died because of the shroud, they died on the gospels.

[@ancientegyptandthebible]

We also let go of Ron Wyatt. Look what happened with that? We don't always want to engage the laymen. It is incumbent upon subject-matter experts to weigh in on these issues for the edification of the Church. For unto some, milk. For others, meat. This channel discusses the meat. The Shroud is an issue that is broached from time to time that requires answers beyond what the laymen can assess. And by not engaging it, the charlatans win through our silence.

[@samueljennings4809]

@ancientegyptandthebible I think that he’s talking about the trend of trying to use the Shroud in apologetics rather than offering any commentary on it at all. I think that you both have valid points to consider. Guess it’s like iron sharpening iron, in a way.

[@yoshiperspectives4880]

Romans 1:22 [22]Professing themselves to be wise(experts in the field), they became fools, 1 Corinthians 1:27 [27]But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world (the laymen) to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty; The evidence found in the Shroud of Turin and the discoveries of Ron Wyatt are evidences God has left for those who are wise and who use proper reasonable judgment to see and solidify their faith. The fools will dismiss even the most reasonable evidence at the sniff of a voice of doubt no matter how unreasonable. A sceptic can find fault or another unreasonable explanation to escape a truth he doesn't want to except. The Kingdom of God and It's treasure is not for the experts, but for the wise and humble who seek out that which is hidden as guided by the Holy Spirit who is the master of proper judgment.

[@kaiser_driphelm-21]

News outlets were going crazy over this , I too was hopeful but after looking at the actual studies , I had the same conclusions you had . I hope more christian influencers dont jump on to this hype train and maintain integrity .

[@tymmiara5967]

When I plotted that graph, I was also suspicious by the pattern the data has. I can understand that maybe at some age linen's level of degradation saturates, because there is nothing left to degrade. But in that case, I would expect essentially some sort of an exponential curve. If we assume, (like the authors did) that the environmental conditions (temperature, humidity etc) are constant, then you would expect the probability of the breaking of any molecular bond connecting the monomers in a polymer at any given instant to be constant, which much like radioactive decay, would produce a clean exponential decay of a sample. This means, the fresher the sample, the faster the degradation (because there is more of it to break) and the older the slower (because there is now less of it to degrade). So I am not surprised that the aging factor eventually flatlines (reaches an asymptote). I am completely at a loss, however, what to make of the fact that the aging factor first increases parabolically. Somehow, the curve the data indicates starts convex and then becomes concave, or in other words, the aging factor changes first slowly with time, then rapidly with time and then again slowly with time. That is rather bizzare. However, I don't quite have the time to read through their derivation in the appendices of the 2019 paper to check whether this might follow from the maths of how x-ray data translates to the actual level of degradation of cellulose. The level of degradation of cellulose is not measured directly but is inferred, so maybe the method of inference introduces this additional non-linearity. The problem is, that we are not given any good physical interpretation of what that aging factor is. It's units (dimensions) are arbitary. There is a fraction of the intensity peak maximum divided by the minimum. That is definitely a dimensionless number. But then, that is multiplied by 1/I_D which surely must have some sort of units. But since they plotted their peaks on a graph with "a.u." (i.e. "arbitrary units"), we will never know what that value even is. If I were to do something like this in my PhD, my supervisor would immediately ask me to put real units on the graph. Or, at least, first make a graph with the raw data (with units) and then show renormalised or otherwised processed data (with arbitrary units). I know, because I literally once showed my supervisor a badly labelled stress vs strain curve taken from a datasheet, and the first question I was asked was "I don't understand, what are the units on the axes?".

[@ancientegyptandthebible]

Yeah, the curve is just dang weird. And I have you to thank for putting that idea of plotting a graph in my head. I hadn't done one these since my chemistry classes. Thank you for your suggestion. 😁

[@tymmiara5967]

@@ancientegyptandthebible I was really hoping you had the knowledge of any sort of software that can plot the data with the error bars. I know, and respect, that you generally don't want to use someone else's material you don't have the copyright to, so I didn't offer doing it myself and sending it to you, but trust me, such an offer of help crossed my mind. I guess I figured that if you hadn't done it, I would probably be motivated enough to make a video on this myself. An idea has been brewing in my head for years now to bring all my objections into one place with well-elucidated arguments. Because I don't believe those "colimated beam" rebuttals to the geometry objection for one second. I also am quite sure that the shroud is completely inconsistent with Jesus having had any sort of face cloth, either under the shroud (then the image would not have formed on the shroud at all. It would all have formed on the cloth) or over theshroud (which, when wrapped around the shroud would completely crumple it making the image jumbled up). Essentially, as someone who can actually claim expertise in crumpling of sheets, I can say that we would have to make one miracle claim "God levitated the shroud perfectly flat above the body just to take a photograh" just to make the shroud plausible. So if someone wants to support one miracle (the resurrection) with purely an empty conjecture of another miracle, then I don't think it reaches the threshold of rational thinking. However, I will again reserve my opinions for later, when I get hold of a "shroud-like sample of linen" on which I could do experiments. All I know for now, as someone who has ironed over a hundred linen napkins for a wedding, is that linen is the easiest to crumple and most difficult to iron fabric I've encountered, lol

[@mariemilycraig]

​@@tymmiara5967Please do bring together your objections and make a video ❤ I'm really interested, especially in experiments on how the image of the body would look if actually wrapped in linen. Cannot understand for the life of me how people ignore that when they make claims that the shroud shows Jesus. But any and all objections would be lovely. So far the most comprehensive analysis I've looked at is the one done by Hugh Farey.

[@tymmiara5967]

12:21 I missed it earlier that they already HAD the shroud sample in their possession in 2017. That means their 2019 method was developed after, most likely, having seen the results for the shroud. Meaning, they could have (and proably did) curate their calibration (like choosing their normalization interval of q being between 1.5 and 4.0 nanometers and not a decimal point more or less) and age estimation criteria to get what they wanted when they revealed the shroud data

[@ancientegyptandthebible]

Yeah, it's not a good look. 😬

[@paull8397]

They have had shroud samples longer than that, there is a book in italian “Il Mistero della Sindone” from 2013 of Fanti measuring cellulose degradation among other things to date the shroud to Christs time but I believe it was work for his book and papers weren't produced. looking at his papers since 2015 his sample naming convention, as well as the description of samples themselves appear to be similar in each paper but the number of samples appear get smaller over time. I suspect he has long been very familiar of the makeup of all of the samples he uses in his newer papers.

[@ancientegyptandthebible]

@@paull8397 The first published use of WAXS I believe in 2017. That Fanti had Shroud samples prior to that shows that there was a result in search of a method. That is never a good thing.

[@paull8397]

@@ancientegyptandthebible Yeah that was his first use of WAXS. but FTIR is used as technique for quickly getting information about the chemical structure and crystallinity of cellulose, he had already used FTIR in his 2015 paper "Mechanical ond opto-chemical dating of the Turin Shroud". He would already have a decent idea of what some of the WAXS results would look like. He has used a number of experimental dating methods. It could be a natural evolution of him seeing the shortfalls of his previous methods and moving on to more precise methods around a similar theory, or it could just be going through various methods until he finds one that best fits what he wants to see.

[@ancientegyptandthebible]

@@paull8397 FTIR is nothing like WAXS in terms of method. There is no way one could predict what the results would look like with an untested method. That is terrible science.

[@SerendipityPoint]

Just yesterday, I myself got a nice thrashing from somebody who brought up the issue of the fire that always seems to get swept under the rug. At least now I know I am in good company.

[@mariemilycraig]

Thank you, Dr Falk!

[@titusnagle]

Really enjoyed this. I appreciate you being so thorough and professional with your critiques. I’ve been following your channel for about 6 months, and its been interesting to see how much of the Christian world refuses to give up their preconceptions on matters that shouldn’t affect their faith. It is the difference between philosophy and the empirical, yet they don’t recognize this. I go to Biola U, and I’ve been a bit underwhelmed by the lack of definitive stances on issues such as this, or exodus dating. On the bright side, your content has confirmed to me that my World Civilizations Professor at Biola was very accurate! I’ve been looking back at my old notes and comparing to your statements and both have aligned. Success!

[@ancientegyptandthebible]

Awesome! I'm glad you found the critiques helpful. 😊

[@KeepsLearning]

Well done

[@RobotCrafter1]

The thing for me about the shroud is: If it is real, wow that's amazing! If it is made by other means, I wonder how they did it. The verification of the shroud doesn't determine my fath in Christ.

[@fushumang1716]

Thanks Dr. Falk for addressing this. When I watched his, I was "what the heck!?". There's some mistepresentation in his video, glad that this was cleared up

[@a.t.ministries5376]

A big issue I’m seeing here is again, as you pointed out, the red herring of constantly alluding to the importance and delicacy of the shroud. The shroud is only important and delicate if it’s legitimate. He claims the reason for the bad data is because the shroud is old and important. But you can only justify the shroud being old and important if you use the bad data. There’s a tad bit of begging the question that I’m detecting.

[@theelfinator217]

Good stuff as always

[@jackray1337]

Dr. Falk, thank you for teaching some critical analysis. Also, the visualization through the graph helped a lot. 10:36-10:52 It was painful to hear Cameron's misuse of Proverbs 18:17. If I were using a Bible passage in a prepared statement, I would analyze it more and make sure the context relates properly. Sometimes I have started writing a response to someone, tried to use a Bible passage in it, analyzed the passage before use, and found the passage was corrective of me instead. At that point, I would rethink my response. For instance, I used Biblehub to view multiple translations of Proverbs 18:17 and found the International Standard Version (ISV) version of the verse to be more relatable, "The first to put forth his case seems right, until someone else steps forward and cross-examines him." That would lead me to not use this passage against Dr. Falk. I could go further by reading what others have written about the passage in a study Bible or other work. I could also do more self-analysis to bring this into what I am doing in my response. - This is just me trying to expand on what Dr. Falk said.

[@bc4yt]

Cameron needs to be more careful in general it seems. When I heard him quote that verse I thought "oh gosh".... I think he needs to take a step back and get some perspective. I suspect the success of his podcast has gotten to him, and he needs to humble himself at least a little.

[@IamGrimalkin]

I think he was using the passage correctly here, actually. Or at least, he's following the same principle behind it. The point behind it is that the last person to speak is going to sound more convincing as they are unlikely to state the counter-arguments, so you should be aware of that bias. Obviously in a literal sense it's talking about the first person to speak, but I see no reason why the same principle won't apply the third or fourth time.

[@bc4yt]

@@IamGrimalkin yeah, I think the application was more or less right, but to use it at this moment and context, with a brother in Christ, I think was the error. That said however, the context of that verse is two adversaries in court, not two brothers earnestly discussing a topic seeking the truth. So Cam's use of it does kind of set up an adversarial atmosphere, but I think Dr Falk has done his best to difuse this whilst also not rolling over and sacrificing truth for collegiality. Cameron took a few missteps here, and it's only right he feel some heat from that. I think he's a good guy, but he needs to be more careful.

[@Thehaystack7999]

Thanks for covering this.

[@mysteriousfungus7192]

Man, I remember seeing the comments in his video and and wow, they really called you an atheist just because you didn't believe in the shroud. Though I want to know your opinion, do you think the shroud was supposed to be a forgery or was it simply art that later got mistaken as a relic?

[@prostodanik1010]

He made a video on just that, I forget when it came out or what it’s called but you can look through his channel and find it I’m sure

[@retrictumrectus1010]

He believes it's the latter.

[@borneandayak6725]

I think the evidences is overwhelming, the Shroud of Turin is authentic.

[@ancientegyptandthebible]

You've already said that elsewhere. Do you have anything else to add to the conversation? Opinions aren't worth much, I'm afraid.

[@Christian_Maoist.]

Don't trust Capturing Griftianity to do the homework

[@brickcreation7074]

Ooooh!!! Ooooh!!!! Dr. Falk actually did it!!!! 🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥 !!!(My first reaction to seeing Dr. Falk responding to Cameron)!!!

[@TairyuShakuhachi]

I hope he lets you on his channel for a debate. It would be great for this channels organic growth!

[@karl5395]

Thank you for unwaivering approach on appraising the scientific method used here. Question on the sample size of 9 used here if I may. I'm not an expert in this field at all (more Maths and engineering), but in mathematical statistics a minimum of 30 samples is often a guide I use in order for the Central Limit Theorem to apply. Is this applicable or not here?

[@ancientegyptandthebible]

You're going to need more than 30 samples just to show whether the method is uniform or not. For example, it has taken thousands of samples to account for the non-uniform nature of C-14/dendrochronology.

[@paull8397]

Pyrolysis of hemicellulose (which is the secondary cell wall) happens from around 220c. I'm not sure of the exact impact this would have on the cellulose in the long term and I haven't seen any studies about this. I have also read a paper titled "Catastrophic Room Temperature Degradation of Cotton Cellulose" where it was found that the cellulose in paper underwent rapid degradation at room temperature after accelerated aging (exposure to 100c at 100% RH for 2-17 days). Ideally the fabric exposed to 200c should be testing again some months after being exposed to high temperatures to ensure that it doesn't impact the aging process long term.

[@runenorderhaug7646]

it is also too flat a flat line too. That is starting to turnfrom a s curve into a full right angle. Like you indicated, it looks like they minimizd the ammount of points there

[@shawnbra9095]

Another great video

[@hallelujahize]

Cameron had the opportunity to invite Dr. Falk to present his critique. Instead he decided to expose him which says that he is not open to discussion. He has already made up his mind and anyone who disagrees with him is either don't understand or are not honest. Didn't expect this from Cameron.

[@a.t.ministries5376]

Ngl, something that almost made me face palm is when you explained that they were trying to get data results with an unvalidate method. I work in biopharm, and that wouldn’t fly fr.

[@FollowersofTheShepherd]

🍿

[@catholicforever]

Thank you for doing constructive criticism of the Shroud of Turin paper. As Christians, we should test all things, and be as truthful as possible.

[@ancientegyptandthebible]

Our pleasure. Our goal is to build people up in the faith and to help them avoid needless ridicule of Christianity and the Bible.

[@davidhoffman6980]

Thank you. I'm an atheist, but I'm always glad to see Christians who have integrity. I believe the shroud of Turin is fake, but I was an evangelical growing up and so my family didn't believe in Catholic relics or miracles. I'm always excited at the prospect of discovering the truth of what really happened. I suspect the ark of the covenant is mythical but if we ever found it, I'd be super stoked. I recently watched a documentary from 20 years ago called the search for the real mount Sinai and I actually got excited even though I knew ahead of time that even if it exists, it's definitely not Jabel Al Lawz. I used to be really into this stuff and I find it nostalgic but always disappointing because the answer is always the same: "It's not that simple. Inconclusive. Probably not." But I'd rather keep wondering my whole life than be sure based on bad reasons.

[@davidryan8547]

With stuff like this i kinda wish you guys could get together on one video together and discuss it. Idk if no one extended an invite or if one or the other just didn't respond positively to such an invite but I am curious about it.

[@ancientegyptandthebible]

The last time Cameron invited me on his show, it was to debate his Shroud expert and I was only given 5 minutes notice. Understandably, I couldn't just drop everything and hop on his live stream, not that I would engage in a debate unprepared anyway.

[@davidryan8547]

@@ancientegyptandthebible That's fair. I guess i just hope if the back and forth is to continue it could be done on a video together to really hash things out.

[@georgesparks7833]

Oh well, I'm sure you knew to expect the critics...😮

[@DarkBlade37]

Hopefully my pastor was not part of the recent hype about the shroud. Don’t know whether he was or wasn’t, as I was unable to attend church this Sunday.

[@ancientegyptandthebible]

Let's pray that he wasn't.

[@espycraft2005yt]

I dont see my last comment idk if you see it. What do you think of eucharistic miracles and mary or saints apparitions?

[@ancientegyptandthebible]

I don't get into those areas.

[@espycraft2005yt]

@@ancientegyptandthebible did you see my last comment? I think youtube does not show it because of it has links in it. Btw why not getting in those areas? Also can you make a short on whats the difference between a bible scholar and a theologian?

[@ancientegyptandthebible]

@@espycraft2005yt If it had a link, KZbin automatically deletes it. I don't go into those areas because they are not matters of history, and we are a history channel.

[@espycraft2005yt]

@@ancientegyptandthebible thx for the quick reply. I thought the more contemporary apparitions could count as historic events. I respect your decision tho. I asked that since its related to the catholic faith, just like the shroud. Where can I send you the comment that was deleted so you can read it?

[@ancientegyptandthebible]

@@espycraft2005yt Try our Discord server.

[@truthmatters7573]

You are totally correct on this one.... I am all for critical evaluation. Truth can withstand scrutiny. We can't let confirmation bias get in the way, because it will discredit us (though I can understand the excitement). Thanks for speaking up. I do wonder about all the other evidences, though. There seems to be a lot of evidence for the authenticity of the shroud and I don't know if it's all of the same caliber as this study or if it is legit.

[@ancientegyptandthebible]

Sadly, much of the other evidence I've examined thus far has been disappointing. I wish I could report better news. The bright side is none of that affect the sureness of the resurrection as found in the New Testament--that remains as certain as ever.

[@truthmatters7573]

@@ancientegyptandthebible If I may ask, do you think someone like Gary Habermas responsibly handles the evidence? I tend to enjoy listening to his presentations, and I'd like to believe he is credible, because he seems like a careful scholar. Just found N.D. Wilson's work.... it's pretty convincing... I that I'll have to land on the inauthentic side of the debate.

[@ancientegyptandthebible]

@@truthmatters7573 > If I may ask, do you think someone like Gary Habermas responsibly handles the evidence? I tend to enjoy listening to his presentations, and I'd like to believe he is credible, because he seems like a careful scholar. He's careful about some things. I think he's a bit too credulous and trusting when it comes to the Shroud. He was taking under the wing of some of the members of STRUP, and that "mentorship" created a bias where he doesn't examine the evidence for the Shroud all that critically. We have to remember that Habermas' first published book was "Verdict on the Shroud" a book he co-authored with Kenneth Stevenson of STRUP. He is not about to burn those bridges at this point. > Just found N.D. Wilson's work.... it's pretty convincing... I that I'll have to land on the inauthentic side of the debate. Do you mean Ian Wilson? Is so, I think Wilson makes too many speculative inferences for my comfort.

[@truthmatters7573]

@@ancientegyptandthebible Thanks for your response regarding Habermas. WIth regards to N.D. Wilson's work. He successfully recreated the shroud with technology and techniques available to medieval people. He wrote a (long) article detailing the process titled: "Father Brown Fakes the Shroud". Using any search engine you should be able to find the article with that title on the booksandculture website. The gist of it is that he was able to create a photo-negative image of a man that shows up as 3D when using specialized image processing software just like the shroud using only linen, paint, glass panes, and the sun. With the mystery of how it could be created essentially solved, I think most of the arguments for the shroud evaporate, so I would land on the side of the shroud being inauthentic. (it's not definitive proof, but definitely tips the scales to forgery/fake being the more likely explanation, imo) Had you seen N.D. Wilson's work before? What do you think of it?

[@truthmatters7573]

@@ancientegyptandthebible So N.D. Wilson has proposed that the shroud was created using painted glass and sunlight placed over linen. But other people have challenged his hypothesis on various grounds. You can find the work of N.D. Wilson by searching for "father brown fakes the shroud" and a response that debunks it "What is wrong with the Shadow Shroud Hypothesis?"

[@iamdigory]

Parts of Cameron's script is written by ai, im about 85% sure (and i wrote this before i got to the part where you said the same thing, so now I'm 95% on it)

[@shanehanes7096]

When are you going to do a video theorizing how it was made?

[@ancientegyptandthebible]

In the future.... maybe.

[@silasberdes6466]

I was reserved in my thoughts and conclusions even when the Shroud buzz was just getting started. Your videos have eloquently validated my skepticism. It should be noted that as a Christian, I am non resistant to the authenticity of the shroud, as I believe you are. The unremarkable research conducted on the shroud is strangely similar to that done on the Mt ebal curse tablet.

[@SunbreathingShadow]

Another face shroud in Spain, can you produce the video & their similarities

[@samueljennings4809]

The Sudarium of Oviedo, you mean?

[@SunbreathingShadow]

@@samueljennings4809 Yes

[@blairmiller9489]

Rather not shroud turin is true.Jesus is true and thats what matter.

[@wormius7350]

Just reading the comments on Bertuzzi’s video, it’s clear he did not fairly represent your position, or even you as a person. Many in the comments were claiming that you were just another skeptic, an atheist, one even called you an “anti-theist.”

[@samueljennings4809]

I wonder how they would have responded to commenters pointing out that Dr Falk was actually Christian. They came after Erik Manning on “Testify” for saying that the gospels were more important to defending the faith than the Shroud. It’s actually reaching a point of fanaticism, and I don’t say that lightly. Christians who are skeptical about the Shroud are becoming labelled as those who don’t have faith in the resurrection.

[@Konxovar0]

@@samueljennings4809 I think it's because the Shroud is easier to think about than the Gospels. A solid, visible archaeological object is easier to understand than multiple witness testimonies, the reliability of which which can be discerned through reasoning. The problem is that the Gospels are true, and the Shroud seems not to be.

[@shanepaulryanalexander2934]

You should do a video if you think the original carbon dating can still be considered an accurate finding

[@ancientegyptandthebible]

Probably not a good use of my time.

[@amaizenblue44]

Blows my mind how dogmatic these people are that they will reject a method that has been well respected for more than half a century in favor of a new "cutting edge" method. ESPECIALLY considering the new method suffers the same problems (to a much higher degree in one case) as they used to reject the carbon dating. That is: 1. the fire, and 2. the "patched" repair location. The paper literally says the linen needs to have been climate controlled (hallo fuego) and their sample was taken from the same location as the carbon dated sample.

[@ancientegyptandthebible]

It does seem inconsistent, but the will to believe is very strong.

[@not_milk]

On a matter of faith, I lean toward the shroud being real, but I’m very open to it being fake. On the matter of this study it seems to be completely biased and almost impossible to get any meaningful conclusions out of it

[@lowbarbillcraig3689]

I am so shocked this has come up again. Good point about unconventional art - Joe Nickell reproduced the shroud in the late 70s. If you're not familiar, Joe Nickell also reproduced the large geological drawings at Nazca.

[@yoshiperspectives4880]

That's false. Joe said a lot of things that were straight up not true like the blood on the shroud not being blood. It is very much blood and more specifically has the chemical make up of someone who just died of suffocation. Also he appears to be quite ignorant about the story in general as he tried to discount the shroud by saying that in Jewish traditional burial the body would be washed and covered in spices but the shroud resembles an unwashed body. But that actually supports it being Yeshua because the Bible specifically says that since the Sabbath was coming they didn't have time to do those preparations. So they quickly put him in the tomb and the girls came after on Sunday morning to finish the burial rituals but by then he was risen.

[@lowbarbillcraig3689]

@@yoshiperspectives4880 Nothing you wrote is in any way a reply to what I wrote. And in response to your rambling about our precious[1], the catholic church investigators were smart enough when it was discovered to figure out it was a forgery. My how the church has moved on since then. [1] yes, you are Gollum

[@lowbarbillcraig3689]

@@yoshiperspectives4880 Why are you on youtube by the way, shouldn't you be out doing an exorcism?

[@yoshiperspectives4880]

@@lowbarbillcraig3689 ??? Jews don't do exorcisms.

[@samueljennings4809]

@lowbarbillcraig3689 Exorcism?…is there something I’m missing?

[@bc4yt]

Cellulose is like me, goes harder and harder then flatlines 😂

[@corringhamdepot4434]

My layman reaction to first hearing these claims, was that inventing a dating method to specifically date a target sample was extremely suspect. The dating method should have been independently proved to produce consistently valid results by blind testing, before it went anywhere near the shroud. PS: A lot of modern linen is treated with fire retardant, so not being very specific about the modern sample that was tested is a huge red flag.

[@coulie27]

Interesting. Weird Curve. The main thing I always question is how they have any such sample from 3000 BC, and the ones in the 1st millenium BC, how they have proven the dating of those. It reminds me of the well documented carbon dating flatline between 800 BC and 500 BC in the calibration curve - any sample believed to be in this range doesn't show any linear difference in C14, which makes me question whether the priori belief of the date is correct to begin with. Same with the flatline in the graph here.

[@coulie27]

see the Hallstatt Plateau ... ancient dating problems abound

[@PBRimmer]

Just writing here as a Catholic and a scientist. I have some faith-based beliefs about the shroud. But I don't think there's any good scientific evidence at all that suggests the shroud is much older than 700 years. I'm also not an expert in archeology or dating techniques, and so deeply appreciate your sharing your expertise about this topic and providing respectful criticism.

[@ancientegyptandthebible]

I think that is a perfectly reasonable position to have.

[@borneandayak6725]

I think the evidences is overwhelming, the Shroud of Turin is authentic.

[@ancientegyptandthebible]

@@borneandayak6725 Okay, if the evidences are overwhelming, why resort to bad science? Why all the dissembling? Why all the special pleading? I'm okay with the Shroud being authentic, but I really have to question that given what I've seen so far. Can't they just do proper research and let the chips fall where they may?

[@Jarred-yk9hq]

look at that timeline down there at the bottom? Is this a time travelling KZbin browser window from 2006?

[@ancientegyptandthebible]

No, it is a VLC Media Player.

[@Jarred-yk9hq]

@@ancientegyptandthebible Oh, that makes much more sense.

[@LupinGaius-ls1or]

This great and all. Now review the carbon dating papers. I’d be interested to see if you find the same errors or obfuscations

[@ancientegyptandthebible]

I don't want to concentrate on Shroud studies. It's not really my interest. However, in reviewing some of the other papers, I have found some serious problems.

[@LupinGaius-ls1or]

@@ancientegyptandthebible That's fair. I think it would be useful to cite the weaknesses in those studies, or the unexplained physics from the '78 studies, before either saying, or giving the impression, that something is or is not a problem.

[@FollowersofTheShepherd]

43:50 What did you say here?

[@ancientegyptandthebible]

Something not meant to be heard. 😂

[@FollowersofTheShepherd]

@@ancientegyptandthebible Apparently so🤣

[@bc4yt]

I'm almost there, what is it 😂

[@bc4yt]

Definitely said "chop suey" 😂

[@markaxworthy2508]

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. It is not only lacking here but is greatly outweighed by contrary evidence telling us the shroud is a fake.

[@ancientegyptandthebible]

Well, I think extraordinary claims require ordinary evidence. Evidence is evidence. But what is lacking here is ordinary evidence.

[@mariemilycraig]

​@@ancientegyptandthebibleLove this reply! 😅❤

[@BesserGlauben]

Would you be willing to adress arguments made by Metatron in "Is the shroud of turin real?"? It's way more in depth than what you typically hear in support of the shroud (Metatron himself btw doesn't even clail it's authentic but he gives interesting arguments) There are quite a lot of claims and arguments in there, which I don't really know how to adress.

[@bc4yt]

"By choosing that temperature they aimed to recreate the conditions" - no they did not. I didn't know the shroud was in a silver box that MELTED. This is absolutely terrible... Char cloth, which is BLACK is made by putting material into an almost air tight container and placed directly into fire. The natural fibers offgass a lot of their combustable compounds but the fabric does not ignite because of lack of oxygen. So long story short, if the shroud was in a box, it could have experienced much higher temperatures than 300c needed for linen to combust, not lower temperatures. This is such a severe complication that I think it renders this method, at least in its current form, absolutely useless, at least until extensive bulk testing is done including the effects of oxygen deprived charring.

[@ianb483]

I don't think that the Shroud was in ambient temperatures hot enough to combust... or it would've combusted. Rather, silver that was in direct contact with flame melted and dripped on it. Also, with ambient temperatures that high, I don't think anyone would've been able to rescue the Shroud from the fire as they did. I do think the evidence from this particular dating method is pretty weak though.

[@bc4yt]

@@ianb483 "or it would've combusted" - no it wouldn't, not if it were in a box starved of oxygen. Given that the shroud is still fairly light colored, I don't think it could have been in those conditions for long, but the problem is we've no way to tell. And the problem with that is that the conditions only help to age it, convenient, given that they are having to really stretch to make it date back to the first century and need all the help they can get. I would love for the shroud to be authentic, but I think it's a trap.

[@Lezlee-abcxyz]

I'm just finding your channel and I saw the name of it. I believe Moses was found by Queen Hatshepsut,. I don't know if you've already done a video on that but have you? LOL

[@ancientegyptandthebible]

kzbin.info/www/bejne/jaLFdJmCmtukrKc and kzbin.info/www/bejne/Y4elh6hnYpKkqKM

[@Lezlee-abcxyz]

@@ancientegyptandthebible no way seriously two of them 😎 oh my gosh you're awesome 👍 thank you 😊

[@ruiassis9752]

Well, apologists being apologists. They are so eager to "prove" faith that they forget why reason and science exist in the first place. Also the methods used in any study must be at par with the state of the art. manipulating the methods to suit our views is not science and is a disservice to faith. One day it may be proved that the TS is from the 1st century, or not. Science will decide, not apologetics

[@Crimsonlupus]

Exactly; I find most mainstream modern apologists are very intellectually lazy and can’t fathom being wrong or suffering ambiguity from certain findings like the shroud.

[@ruiassis9752]

@@Crimsonlupus not just being lazy but they, like most people nowadays think they can have an "opinion" on matters they are not qualified to judge what is correct and what is not, instead of hearing those who actually know what they are talking about

[@AB-mg5sx]

You might cause him to change denomination again! The truth sliced right through him!

[@foxsparrow8973]

What I find funny about the shroud is that the man looks nothing like a 1st century Judian. We have paintings of Jews from the period and none of them had long hair and beards like the images of Jesus we see later on. The guy looks like a European male, not a Jew. Plus the burial cloth is not like what Jews used either.

[@samueljennings4809]

Yea that is my hesitation. The only way I suppose it could be is if the Jewish tradition of payots indeed did go back to the first century, and Jesus had them, but were undone as part of the shaming of the cross…that and the 5’3” height estimate by Msgr. Ricci (I think that’s his name?) that was shunned by other experts was indeed the real height of the man in the Shroud IF this was the real thing. I have no idea. Im a skeptic of the Shroud. It’s technically possible, I suppose, but I have my reservations.

[@OrthodoxJoker]

Not true at all. The man in the shroud image looks extremely Middle Eastern. Christs hair would have been long from traveling constantly

[@foxsparrow8973]

@metaldisciple people at that time dressed Roman, the Sunday school church play outfits are based on Bedouin Arabs. The only men with long hair during that time would have been barbarians in Germania.

[@OrthodoxJoker]

@@foxsparrow8973 Jews didn’t dress Roman you dillweed

[@samueljennings4809]

@@OrthodoxJoker I can see the Man in the Shroud being Middle Eastern...but I am not sure about the long hair. Mostly because scholarship has made a point that generally Jewish men made a habit of keeping hair and facial hair relatively short for cleanliness and hygiene reasons (unless they were Nazarites, who had made a vow to God. Jesus was not a Nazarite, but John the Baptist was). The only way I can see Jesus honestly having shoulder length hair would have been if He had normally worn payots (in line with Jewish customs per Leviticus, which some Jewish men still wear), which probably could have been undone as part of His humiliation and mocking before being led away to crucifixion. So even if Jesus had long hair, it is unlikely that it would have been flowing free, but more likely to have been braided or done up to be presentable. ...also I do lean towards Msgr Ricci's estimate for a height of ~5'3" IF (IF) the Shroud is genuine. Not only is this in line with Judean men at the time, but a lot of early church writings imply that Jesus was shorter than average (which was 5'5"-5'6"), and if St Ephrem the Syrian is correct that Jesus was 3 cubits tall (between 4'6" and roughly 5'2" depending on how cubits or "human ells" are measured), then the Man in the Shroud, IF genuine, would have to have been shorter than many Shroud proponents argue.

[@WickedFelina]

Have you read the PDF by ACADEMIA entitled How Raymond Rogers PROVED that the 1988 C-14 dating of the Shroud was WORTHLESS" by Joe Marino? It is on the web. As it states, it proves the 1988 carbon dating is wrong and why? This alone points the Shroud to a much older date.

[@ancientegyptandthebible]

I have read it. I think this article create more problems than it solves. The "invisible reweave" hypothesis is deeply problematic and raises the possibility that the entire shroud is a linen-cotton blend.

[@CyberUser_055]

Hi Dr. David Falk. I have question about Mark 13:30. I have a brother in faith who is a biblical scholar and he claims that the term 'generation' in this passage refers to unbelieving Jews. I will quote: "Then he goes and takes with him seven other spirits more wicked than himself, and they enter and dwell there; and the last state of that man is worse than the first. So shall it also be with this wicked generation.' [Mt 12] = generation = unbelieving Jews. (29): And when the crowds were gathered together, he began to say: This generation is an evil generation; it seeks a sign, but no sign will be given to it except the sign of Jonah. [Lk 11] = generation = unbelieving Jews. (18): Then the Jews answered and said to him: What sign do you show to us, since you do these things? [Jn 2] generation = unbelieving Jews. (22): For Jews request a sign, and Greeks seek after wisdom, [1Cor 1] = Jews = a generation seeking signs. 'Generation' = unbelieving Jews. (9): Where your fathers tested me and tried me, and saw my works for forty years. (10): Therefore, I was angry with that generation, and said: They always go astray in their heart; they have not known my ways, [Heb 3] generation = unbelieving Jews. (40): And with many other words he testified and exhorted them, saying: Be saved from this perverse generation. [Acts 2] generation = unbelieving Jews. (25): But first he must suffer many things and be rejected by this generation. [Lk 17] generation = unbelieving Jews. (51): From the blood of Abel to the blood of Zechariah, who was slain between the altar and the temple. Assuredly, I say to you, it will be required of this generation. [Lk 11] generation = unbelieving Jews. (49): Therefore, also Wisdom of God said: I will send them prophets and apostles, and some of them they will kill and persecute, (50): that the blood of all the prophets which was shed from the foundation of the world may be required of this generation, (51): from the blood of Abel to the blood of Zechariah, who was slain between the altar and the temple. Assuredly, I say to you, it will be required of this generation. [Lk 11] generation = unbelieving Jews. (32): For the men of Nineveh will rise up in the judgment with this generation and condemn it; for they repented at the preaching of Jonah, and indeed a greater than Jonah is here. [Lk 11] generation = unbelieving Jews. (28): But he said: More than that, blessed are those who hear the word of God and keep it. (29): And when the crowds were gathered together, he began to say: This generation is an evil generation; it seeks a sign, but no sign will be given to it except the sign of Jonah. (30): For as Jonah became a sign to the Ninevites, so also the Son of Man will be to this generation. (31): The queen of the South will rise up in the judgment with this generation and condemn it, for she came from the ends of the earth to hear the wisdom of Solomon; and indeed a greater than Solomon is here. (32): The men of Nineveh will rise up in the judgment with this generation and condemn it; for they repented at the preaching of Jonah, and indeed a greater than Jonah is here. (33): No one, when he has lit a lamp, puts it in a secret place or under a basket, but on a lampstand, that those who enter may see the light. [Lk 11] generation = unbelieving Jews. (30): But the Pharisees and lawyers rejected the will of God for themselves, not having been baptized by him. (31): And the Lord said: To what then shall I liken the men of this generation, and what are they like? (32): They are like children sitting in the marketplace and calling to one another, saying: We played the flute for you, and you did not dance; we mourned to you, and you did not weep. (33): For John the Baptist came neither eating bread nor drinking wine, and you say: He has a demon. (34): The Son of Man has come eating and drinking, and you say: Look, a glutton and a winebibber, a friend of tax collectors and sinners! (35): But wisdom is justified by all her children. [Lk 7] generation = unbelieving Jews. (39): But he answered and said to them: An evil and adulterous generation seeks after a sign, and no sign will be given to it except the sign of the prophet Jonah. [Mt 12] generation = unbelieving Jews." What do you think about this interpretation ? Is that make any sense in your opinion ?

[@FollowersofTheShepherd]

Try checking out some commentaries

[@bc4yt]

Not sure Dr Falk will give an answer here on an off topic question (if he did, he'd never have time to sleep!) but join us on the next live stream Friday night and ask there, and you'll likely get an answer :D

[@Piranhabyte]

True case of “I want the Shroud to be true therefore…” rather than objectively assessing the work. The Shroud of Turin is NOT the hill to die on.

[@ancientegyptandthebible]

It shouldn't be a hill to die on. Unfortunately, not everyone has that perspective.

[@Piranhabyte]

@@ancientegyptandthebible Personally I don’t affirm the Shroud because Ron Wyatt didn’t find it 😆

[@ancientegyptandthebible]

@@Piranhabyte 🤣

[@mcba6811]

Thanks for the critical thinking. That being said, I doubt that it’s easy to get access to thousands of similar fabric of known age, so using 9 samples is a good start. I definitely think the shroud is legit but appreciate you holding the scientist’s to a high standard and pointing out where the methodology needs to be hardened. As for your comment concerning the fact that Cameron isn’t qualified to make a claim, I think that’s just elitist speak. You don’t have to hold a doctorate to understand enough to educate the general population at a high level like Cameron does and he leans heavily on those that are experts. As for your claim of bias, ALL scientists have a bias toward their theory. So to pretend that they don’t is ludicrous. But I do agree more needs to be done to remove that bias through good methods. Again, thank you for your video, it’s much needed but I think you could be more gracious in the future.

[@ancientegyptandthebible]

> Thanks for the critical thinking. That being said, I doubt that it’s easy to get access to thousands of similar fabric of known age, so using 9 samples is a good start. If that were the case, then it would have been irresponsible to go to press with a method that you cannot verify works. But we do know that there are lots of samples that have survived from that period, textile museums are full of these samples. And yes, textile museums are a thing, and they are located around the world. > I definitely think the shroud is legit but appreciate you holding the scientist’s to a high standard and pointing out where the methodology needs to be hardened. We respect that you think the shroud is legit. > As for your comment concerning the fact that Cameron isn’t qualified to make a claim, I think that’s just elitist speak. It's not elitist speak, but it is carefully weighing the opinions that Cameron is offering. He claims that the later research is "more rigorous." How does he know that? That's a fair question since he has no qualifications to properly evaluate his claims. > You don’t have to hold a doctorate to understand enough to educate the general population at a high level like Cameron does and he leans heavily on those that are experts. That's a weird sentence. Cameron is not an educator. His knowledge of the Bible is thin at best. He's an interviewer. And who does he interview? People that are experts... like me. You did realize that I am one of the experts that he has leaned upon in the past, right? > As for your claim of bias, ALL scientists have a bias toward their theory. Sure, and non-scientists also have bias. However, we are supposed to identify and mitigate for our biases. And the De Caro et al. team has not done that, instead they ran with their biases. > So to pretend that they don’t is ludicrous. But I do agree more needs to be done to remove that bias through good methods. And that's what we are saying too. They needed to do more to remove their biases given their poor history at mitigating their biases. > Again, thank you for your video, it’s much needed but I think you could be more gracious in the future. Oh, I was gracious. And if I hear that right, I'm supposed to be obsequious and pandering to Cameron, but he can say whatever he wants about me? Am I understanding that right?

[@mcba6811]

@@ancientegyptandthebible Thanks for the reply. I watched both videos, he was much more gracious to you than you were to him. I never said to pander. Perhaps this is just a blind spot for you but in my opinion, you come across as elitist both in the video and in your response here. Right perhaps but not gracious. Your all or nothing approach to science and to what an educator is are examples of your elitist mentality. There is a place for experts and there is a place for general audience education. Cameron is the latter and I've learned a ton from his program. Again, I appreciate your contribution to the discussion and that you are holding people like Cameron to a higher standard. You have a lot to offer, I just hope you don't turn people off so much by your all or nothing approach that no one will listen. You made a statement a couple times that believing in the legitimacy of the shroud is a faith based decision. While I believe that's partially true, I believe there is overwhelming evidence that it is. I'm curious, do you believe the shroud is the burial cloth of Jesus? Not that you can scientifically prove that it is but just that the evidence points to the fact that it most likely is legitimate?

[@ancientegyptandthebible]

@@mcba6811 > Thanks for the reply. I watched both videos, he was much more gracious to you than you were to him. Oh, so he can say I'm holding out facts and misrepresenting my views, and that's gracious to you? > I never said to pander. Perhaps this is just a blind spot for you but in my opinion, you come across as elitist both in the video and in your response here. Look, I gave him the benefit of the doubt of not being dishonest or stupid. Perhaps, I was wrong to do that. And being confident in one's knowledge is not being elitist. > Your all or nothing approach to science and to what an educator is are examples of your elitist mentality. How did I do that? I'm only saying the the De Caro et al. group has to follow the minimal standards of scientific integrity. If they cannot that, then we really aren't talking about science, are we? > There is a place for experts and there is a place for general audience education. Cameron is the latter and I've learned a ton from his program. We are a channel that appeals to learned people who want to grow in their faith, not the ignorant masses who don't. We aren't going to placate those who derive benefit form a Ron Wyatt, a Joel Osteen, or a Cameron Bertuzzi. > You have a lot to offer, I just hope you don't turn people off so much by your all or nothing approach that no one will listen. We don't have an all or nothing approach. Don't know what you're smoking there. > You made a statement a couple times that believing in the legitimacy of the shroud is a faith based decision. Yup, and we are fine with that. > While I believe that's partially true, I believe there is overwhelming evidence that it is. That's a objective truth claim. Objective truth claims need support from evidence. That is precisely what is at issue here. > I'm curious, do you believe the shroud is the burial cloth of Jesus? Not that you can scientifically prove that it is but just that the evidence points to the fact that it most likely is legitimate? I personally do not believe it is the burial cloth of Jesus. But I would not belittle anyone who does believe that.

[@mcba6811]

@@ancientegyptandthebible That explains the attitude. Thanks for the honesty. I hope you keep challenging these folks to hold high scientific standards. Too bad it won’t be in a gracious way but we’re all on a growth journey so may the God of grace continue to fashion you into His image.

[@ancientegyptandthebible]

@@mcba6811 That's a bit pious, but so be it.

[@jedighostbear4401]

It's almost like Cameron is repeating what the researchers, or the defenders of the research, are telling him. He should really know better

[@a.t.ministries5376]

Why no popcorn?😢

[@ancientegyptandthebible]

Because Catholics are very sensitive about this subject. I treated Cameron with the utmost respect, and you see in the comments that they are going off about me being condescending and snooty. How do you think they would react if I popcorned Cameron over this?

[@a.t.ministries5376]

@@ancientegyptandthebibleit isn’t about how they react. Cameron made some pretty big blunders on this one, and it would make sense to have the treatment be the same regardless of audience reactions. However, since he is a brother, I can see why that wouldn’t be done, especially since he doesn’t seem to be as antagonist to the faith and yourself as others, but he wasn’t the most charitable, I’d say. Hence the suggestion of popcorn lol

[@bc4yt]

​@@ancientegyptandthebible you've been very generous here, much moreso than I would be, and I think you've set a great example. Cameron was way out of line in how he handled this issue and especially you, and you've corrected him thoroughly, fairly, and gently, considering the degree to which he's "represented" you and your position.

[@mkl2237]

De Caro never made the jump to claim his study “proved” it was Jesus’ cloth… bloggers spouting off make that jump… bloggers who spout off outside their expertise… (like you)

[@samueljennings4809]

@mkl2237 iirc he’s responding to what the bloggers are saying, and he does even say what you just said, that the study is being misinterpreted and misrepresented.

[@vincentrolongmarquez2761]

You are so kind and friendly even in a response😂

[@ancientegyptandthebible]

And you think this is me being mean? 🤣🤣🤣

[@IamGrimalkin]

Having had a look through the full video now, I feel like the way you drew a line around those points is kind of overfitting (but I think you were probably doing that deliberately to illustrate the overfitting that the researchers' claims imply). If you only have a few points, you can't fit a complicated curve like that. Honestly if I saw points like that I'd probably just fit a simple function like a logarithmic function regardless of it looking like a bad fit. If I was really convinced it was an S-curve I'd use a known S-curve function like the logistic function. Yes, the fit would look a bit off, but that just illustrates the error bars are too narrow. You need to increase the overall uncertainty value of the method. If you want a more complicated curve, you need more points if you're going to hold off overfitting accusations.

[@ancientegyptandthebible]

> Having had a look through the full video now, I feel like the way you drew a line around those points is kind of overfitting (but I think you were probably doing that deliberately to illustrate the overfitting that the researchers' claims imply). Yup. > If you only have a few points, you can't fit a complicated curve like that. Exactly. What kind of curve were they trying to fit? The fact is they didn't draw a curve, so they were doing dating not by plotting on a curve, but by "gut feel" of where they felt the Turing Shroud measurement should be. See any problem with that? > Honestly if I saw points like that I'd probably just fit a simple function like a logarithmic function regardless of it looking like a bad fit. If I was really convinced it was an S-curve I'd use a known S-curve function like the logistic function. But they never go there. If they suggested it was logarithmic, they would certainly have had problems on the other end of the curve. That too would have raised embarrassing questions. > Yes, the fit would look a bit off, but that just illustrates the error bars are too narrow. You need to increase the overall uncertainty value of the method. If you want a more complicated curve, you need more points if you're going to hold off overfitting accusations. Increasing the error bars is not my problem. That's a them problem. But the researchers did not adequately account for the problems in their already curated data set.

[@IamGrimalkin]

To be honest, who cares about all of this stuff when the shroud of turin is not consistent with the biblical accounts anyway...

[@deutschermichel5807]

It is, tho

[@2anthranilicacid]

​@@deutschermichel5807Please elaborate.

[@samueljennings4809]

@2anthranilicacid what I gather is that the argument is that the Shroud is not the complete “set”. Jesus’ headpiece was the Sudanium of Oviedo (look it up, another piece that has attracted some controversy and attention), and that strips of linen were both applied to Jesus’ jaw (holding his mouth shut) and limbs (to ensure that they didn’t fall to his sides), then again to wrap the Shroud in place that was wrapped over the body. I’m not sure about the Shroud, but i suppose that such a scenario IS possible, although I don’t know if I would say that I truly believe that it is THE shroud.

[@2anthranilicacid]

@@samueljennings4809 To me that would actually make the TS much weirder: It is not apparent from the TS that any body parts were covered by other pieces of cloth. One would think that his face - for example - would then be missing from the TS, if it was covered by another piece of cloth. Whatever my doubts: I did pray in front of the Shroud and I venerated it. After all, whatever it's origin, it is an icon of Christ. If made by hands or without. :-) Thank you for the kind explanation. I will look into this.

[@samueljennings4809]

@@2anthranilicacid Not a problem :). Honestly I would be confused as to why the image would have gone onto the Shroud, not onto the Sudanium. Either way, I'm okay with not knowing if it's something beyond our understanding.

[@gabrielteo3636]

I appreciate your input. Unfortunately, the Christian is grasping at straws. Even the slightest and remote possibility is strong evidence for them. Such is the nature of confirmation bias. Secondly, even if the shroud is later definitively dated to some other date than about 33 AD, they will just dismiss it and it will be forgotten. They just need the the supposed x-ray impression to be true. I wish someone would figure out how this forgery was done. That would dispel this myth.

[@jeffreyerwin3665]

Well sir, that is the issue. This so-called "forgery" cannot be "figured out." In 1978 24 scientists went to Turin to do exactly what you have suggested. They imported four tons of scientific equipment and had five full days of unrestricted access to the Shroud. There were three Catholics on this team, but even they expected that the team would be successful in determining how the images had been imprinted on the cloth. They had planned this examination and testing for two years and then took another three years to analyze the data they had extracted from the Shroud. Their final unanimous conclusions? The images on the Shroud are not paintings of any kind and are not the work of an artist. The Shroud has been in contact with a human corpse. And our investigation cannot determine how those images were made. Many attempts have been made to reproduce the Shroud's images. None successful. Sir, maybe, just maybe, your "forgery" conclusion is premature.

[@gabrielteo3636]

@@jeffreyerwin3665 You know what, scientists have not figured out how a lot of things are done, yet. Let me ask you. If we see a phenomena we cannot explain do we jump to conclude the supernatural? That's what the Greeks did for lightning and storms and earthquakes and the sun. There are many more ways than painting, yet painting pigments were found on the shroud. Let me ask, if it were definitively shown the shroud was from the 14th century, would it lower your confidence a guy came back from the dead? If not, then this is not really relevant evidence. It's like faith. It is for things hoped for...

[@gabrielteo3636]

@@jeffreyerwin3665 "In 1978 24 scientists went to Turin to do exactly what you have suggested. They imported four tons of scientific equipment and had five full days of unrestricted access to the Shroud." Great! Allow the scientists again today. We have much better equipment than 1978. No problem, right?

[@grantgooch5834]

@@gabrielteo3636 >Great! Allow the scientists again today. We have much better equipment than 1978. No problem, right? Yes, there's no problem and the STURP team themselves even recommended that additional tests be performed. Unfortunately, the Shroud is owned by the Pope and any testing needs his approval, which was understandably not granted after the (now discredited by three papers, see 2012 paper by Riani et all, the 2019 paper by Casabianca et all, and the 2020 paper by Bryan Walsh and Larry Schwalbe) 1988 carbon dating. Apparently Benedict was open to further testing on the Shroud but he resigned before it could be arranged and Francis hasn't shown any interest in doing so. If any further testing will be done on the Shroud, it will probably be after Francis's tenure.

[@retrictumrectus1010]

"his producer" it sounds rude 😂

[@thatwifeofhis7815]

Im not sure why Protestants et al are so eager to disprove this miracle.

[@ancientegyptandthebible]

Where did I say I was a Protestant? I never claimed to be a Protestant. Have the ole-Protestants been big blue meanies to you Catholic snowflakes? Poor babies! 😂

[@thatwifeofhis7815]

Wow. Perhaps "I am a bible believing Christian" puts you in the "et al" category, and this unnecessary unchristian response places you in the "meanie" category. Two seconds short of adjusting your fedora to pitch a "sky daddy" at me. Nobody cares about a degree when your adamant denial only proves the opposite about the shroud.

[@thatwifeofhis7815]

​@@ancientegyptandthebibleAlso, this video makes you look extra foolish. Stick your degree wherever it goes, your adamant denial only proves the opposite about the shroud.

[@thatwifeofhis7815]

​@@ancientegyptandthebibleMy response to you "miraculously" disappeared.

[@samueljennings4809]

@thatwifeofhis7815 tbh that probably isn’t him. KZbin comment sections are notorious for replies not always coming up, and just vanishing. I wish that would get addressed, it’s frustrating.

[@Crimsonlupus]

I was going to accuse Cameron’s major fault to being a layman, but that’s not fair nor the issue. Lay men such as Mike Jones have also shown skepticism, Cameron is just flat out intellectually lazy or inept. I had somewhat of a hard time following all of this, but after listening closely even I was as jaw dropped by how utterly awful his arguments were.

[@yoshiperspectives4880]

Romans 1:22 [22]Professing themselves to be wise(experts in the field), they became fools, 1 Corinthians 1:27 [27]But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world (the laymen) to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty; The evidence found in the Shroud of Turin and the discoveries of Ron Wyatt are evidences God has left for those who are wise and who use proper reasonable judgment to see and solidify their faith. The fools will dismiss even the most reasonable evidence at the sniff of a voice of doubt no matter how unreasonable. A sceptic can find fault or another unreasonable explanation to escape a truth he doesn't want to except. The Kingdom of God and It's treasure is not for the experts, but for the wise and humble who seek out that which is hidden as guided by the Holy Spirit who is the master of proper judgment.

[@ancientegyptandthebible]

Comment spamming is against channel rule. Continuing to do that will result in you being banned.

[@yoshiperspectives4880]

@@ancientegyptandthebible Sorry, this comment disappeared from my screan for a while so I thought KZbin deleted it. Happens sometimes.

[@ancientegyptandthebible]

@@yoshiperspectives4880 Okay, fair enough. If that's what happened, all is forgiven. 🙂

[@brando3342]

Dude… “around the world Christians are buzzing”… is not something worth critiquing, it’s literally just a statement of fact. That IS happening. He didn’t say anything about “not being a faithful Christian if you’re not convinced” or anything of the sort. I honestly don’t think it’s worth listening for almost an hour, if you’re going to be unnecessarily splitting hairs like this. If you do another cut of JUST your arguments against his actual points regarding the shroud, I will watch it.

[@bc4yt]

That's a lot of words for "I don't want to hear the rest so I'm gonna pretend this is an issue and run away" 👍 I assume you hold Cameron to the same standard? Oh wait, no I don't...

[@brando3342]

@@bc4yt Oh no, how will I ever continue in life knowing bc4yt has this opinion of my comment? Ohh noooo, oh dear, my life is over… 🤷‍♂️

[@bc4yt]

@@brando3342 😂 I hope you couldn't care less about my opinion, by also, I'm right aren't I? You don't want to hear the weightier critiques as you may need to reconsider your position on the shroud and/or Cameron...

[@brando3342]

@@bc4yt No, you’re absolutely not right, that’s what makes it so funny 😂

[@brando3342]

@@bc4yt You think I would have even clicked on the video if you were right? 😂

[@aaron7392]

Sad to see this video disprove the shroud! What a shame!😡

[@paulbryhanson]

"The method has proven effective across these various samples, enhancing confidence in its reliability for dating ancient textiles" (The Singular Fortean Society, EWTN) What your proposing is trying to stipulate that the WAXS method is actually no good at dating, when many samples have been dated using the WAXS method and they are "known" dates and so how does one explain this far reaching coincidence that the WAXS method actually dates a sample of "known age" to within a fairly accurate date? It suggests at least that the Shroud of Turin is older than we previously thought. Even if it is Jesus it doesn't directly prove a resurrection, but from the blood samples we can see there was some kind of unique event that caused the image and what happened to the man that happened to be in the cloth less than 72 hours even though his blood from being alive and dead is on the cloth. The mystery it seems maybe that the story of the resurrection is true, but on the other hand if I want to play the devil's advocate, it could be that some other unqiue set of circumstances lead to his body being removed or disintegrated and/or the image being produced that really is anything but caused by some kind of particles due to its superificiality?

[@ancientegyptandthebible]

You actually quoted a paranormal investigation journal for support of their dating method? Really? You serious?

[@paulbryhanson]

​@@ancientegyptandthebibleWhile some of the coverage regarding the X-ray dating of the Shroud of Turin includes publications with religious or paranormal affiliations, it's important to emphasize that the core study behind the X-ray method is grounded in peer-reviewed research conducted by recognized scientific institutions, like the Institute of Crystallography of Italy’s National Research Council and the University of Padua. This method, Wide-Angle X-ray Scattering (WAXS), has shown promise in dating the Shroud and supports the idea that it could be much older than previously thought. Additionally, the X-ray dating method isn't the only scientific evidence suggesting an older date for the Shroud. Other tests, such as the vanillin test, indicate that there was vanillin present in the samples used for the 1988 carbon-14 dating but none in the rest of the Shroud. This absence suggests a minimum age of 1500 years, since vanillin naturally dissipates over time unless removed by an artificial process, which is unlikely in this context. Furthermore, mechanical tests-including compression testing and other physical evaluations-have also provided age estimates that align with the WAXS findings. These five different tests, though relatively new, all point towards a consistent date range much older than the medieval period previously proposed. Importantly, these studies have been carried out by established scientific researchers, adding credibility to their findings and indicating that these newer methods merit further investigation.

[@PBRimmer]

@@paulbryhanson An MDPI journal. The bottom of the barrel. And so far no independent group has used WAXS to reproduce the original group's results, or applied these techniques to other samples. The only group who "dates" anything using WAXS, to my knowledge, is the same group that "dated' the shroud. The 2019 paper has been favorably cited. Other independent groups think the technique shows some promise and deserves further work. So far as I know, no independent group has actually done this work. At least, if they have, it's not yet been published.

[@paulbryhanson]

​​@@PBRimmerThe Shroud has had 5 dating tests done by Dr Raymond Rogers, Liberato De Caro, and Giulio Fanti. All point to a 1st century date. The fact these collaborate even though they are new test is not an accident or an incredible coincidence. Something more is at play here. Either they collaborate because the Shroud is 1st century or all 3 scientists, one being an atheist and has no claim or bias, are collaborating to make the results the same. This is highly unlikely. I know science deals with absolute and sometimes you have to prove something by science. But, in a court of law it's different. We have enough strong evidence to indicate the cloth is from 1st century Jerusalem now. It's almost indisputable and no jury would favour a medieval date or Europe as it's creation now. So that ship has been sailed now and there's no point in being skeptical about it's age or geographic origin. What we should focus on is how the hell we got the image and if it's Jesus, what can we find out about the man in this cloth. Is it a freak accident that turned into a religion or was it a supernatural event that turned into a religion?

[@PBRimmer]

@@paulbryhanson Is there a genuinely independent group who also find a 1st century date, using the same or other methods? Are these methods widely used by other independent groups to date other things? If so, where is this work published and what has been the outcome? As far as I can tell, it's this group of scientists who always find these old dates, and only this group of scientists who find these dates. That makes me more suspicious of the results, not less.

[@rimmersbryggeri]

Does it even matter wether it was 1st century or not? Alot of people had such shrouds in the 1st century. Is this not exactly the kins of "idol worship" the bible instructs its believers not to engage in? To the extent that the bible actually instructs anything at all.

[@jeffreyerwin3665]

The depictions of Jesus found on sixth century icons and coins have a proven congruence with the facial image found on the Shroud. In fact, so many points of congruence have been proven that the odds of sixth century artisans hitting on those points by chance has been estimated as about 7 in a billion of billions. Therefore, the Shroud cannot date to the 14th century. It must have been extant in the sixth century when it was known as the Image of Edessa. But that leads to something incredible. The Shroud has been also proven to have way too much radiocarbon for a sixth century relic. What's going on here? One idea is that a secret repair was done on the Shroud in the 16th century, but that hypothesis has been repeatedly falsified. Another hypothesis is that the Shroud was subjected to a neutron radiation event when Jesus' corpse dematerialized. That hypothesis has corroborating evidence. The conclusion is that the 1988 radiocarbon readings on the Shroud prove, not a date, but a miraculous first century event, i.e. the dematerialization of Jesus' dead body. This debate about dating of the Shroud is irrelevant.

[@ancientegyptandthebible]

Empty conjecture.

[@samueljennings4809]

“ The conclusion is that the 1988 radiocarbon readings on the Shroud prove, not a date, but a miraculous first century event, i.e. the dematerialization of Jesus' dead body.” Regardless of if the Shroud is genuine or not, how does the 1988 carbon dating test PROVE this, exactly? Are you sure you’re not mixing things up, bc the 1988 results reached no such conclusion whatsoever, whether legitimate or not.

[@DarkBlade37]

Jesus’s body didn’t dematerialize.

[@PBRimmer]

I like this hypothesis. There are some very strange and compelling things about the Shroud of Turin, and a miracle could change the physical properties of the shroud in a way that would lead to deviations in 14C dating. But if a miraculous event has changed the physical properties of the shroud, the scientific method will be rendered useless to determine the date or anything else about the shroud with much confidence. Consider this hypothesis (which I, a Catholic, am warming up to): The shroud was a 13th century piece of art. The artist received a mystical vision of Christ, and based her work off that vision. The work itself was miraculous, the technique inspired by God, and for this reason cannot be reproduced. The identity of the original artist was lost, and pious Christians came to believe that the shroud was the burial shroud of Christ. What possible evidence could falsify such an hypothesis?

[@samueljennings4809]

@PBRimmer tbh I’m leaning more towards this as a possibility. I have severe doubts regarding the Shroud going back to the first century, yet there are properties that imply it isn’t an art piece. A miraculous relic or icon could fit the bill, like a copy of Jesus’ appearance rather than the actual cloth over Jesus’ body 🤷🏾‍♂️ I suppose that could explain it?

[@mkl2237]

Dr Falk… Your qualifications here don’t rise beyond “amateur blogger” level. You’re an Egyptologist, not a scientist. Not an educated and trained scientist, not a practicing scientist, and not an imaging specialist. (Addendum: archaeology is a soft science… sorry, but it is…. Not STURP caliber science)

[@ancientegyptandthebible]

And yet, I had many of the same qualifications as the STURP "scientists" had prior to my return to academia. Strictly speaking, a lot of the scientists at STURP were not scientists but engineers. And chronometric dating is not a discipline that was held by any of the STRUP "scientists." People over-estimate much of the acumen of those who worked on STURP and the results they generates.

[@kristospheros]

Stop listening to this guy - Bertuzzi. He is no more qualified to speak on these issues than your hairdresser.

[@ancientegyptandthebible]

Bertuzzi's hairdresser has four graduate degrees in archaeology and ancient material and ritual culture? Well, that explains a lot! 🤣

[@INFJason]

Youre seriously talking about confirmation bias?! The TERRIBLE carbon dating and interpretation SCREAMS of confirmation bias. Comparing the two techniques, the latter was performed with MUCH more rigor. Your attitude screams of confirmation bias above all else though. Nothing could convince you, and you know it.

[@ancientegyptandthebible]

> Youre seriously talking about confirmation bias?! Yes, yes I am. > The TERRIBLE carbon dating and interpretation SCREAMS of confirmation bias. I did not broach the C-14 dating. However, you raise a good question. How did the C-14 dating across THREE LABORATORIES rise to the level confirmation bias? That would imply collusion, and that would be a very difficult sell. > Comparing the two techniques, the latter was performed with MUCH more rigor. How so? C-14 was developed in 1940. It had been vetted for FIFTY YEARS by the time the Shroud was tested. Okay, issues can arise with C-14 dating. But that has been mitigated by use of multiple labs testing different samples. You are comparing a completely unvalidated method with a tiny sample set to a long-tested, validated, and calibrated method. Do you know what you're talking about? > Your attitude screams of confirmation bias above all else though. Nothing could convince you, and you know it. That's ad hominem reasoning. How do you know I have a confirmation bias as opposed to everyday doubts? How do you know nothing can convince me? Nine months ago, I had no opinion at all about the Shroud. But shoddy methods and bad science has driven me towards Shroud skepticism.

[@silviosposito375]

Your work is interesting but not very useful. There are by now many certainties: the radiocarbon dating of 1988 is completely wrong for many biases. You know it very well. No one has been able to reproduce the threedimensional qualities of the image. And how a medieval scientist-artist could do that? Furthermore, why such a genius made a negative photographic image and not a positive one? Why this strange choice? For which unknown reason? And the particular kind of linen similar only to Masada's ones? And the absence of vanillin, like only in very ancient linen? And the pollens from Jerusalem's region? And the nails in the wrists, not in the palms as in all medieval paintings or sculptures? And so on and on... I'm sorry but I don't see the usefullness of your work.

[@ancientegyptandthebible]

> Your work is interesting but not very useful. Uh... if method doesn't matter, then anything goes. I can't think of anything much more important than methodology. > There are by now many certainties: the radiocarbon dating of 1988 is completely wrong for many biases. To be fair, those biases are disputed. Would you care to specify what those biases are? > You know it very well. Do I? > No one has been able to reproduce the threedimensional qualities of the image. You do realize that the 3-D image qualities have been anachronisitcally superimposed upon the image, right? That's a terrible basis for contention. > And how a medieval scientist-artist could do that? They didn't. That's a modern affectation. Like using an embossing algorithm to show something is 3-D. It's an anachronistic superimposition. > Furthermore, why such a genius made a negative photographic image and not a positive one? Because some ancient art techniques could do this. > Why this strange choice? Because it could create a ghostly image on a cloth. > For which unknown reason? Not unknown. But as stated above. > And the particular kind of linen similar only to Masada's ones? How was that determined? There's no basis for stating the two were similar. > And the absence of vanillin, like only in very ancient linen? Linen does not contain a significant amount of vanillin. This is pro-Shroud advocates grasping at straws. > And the pollens from Jerusalem's region? The pollens specified could encompass the entire ANE region, not just Jerusalem. This means the fabric could have been made in Constantinople or Alexandria, not just Jerusalem. That's just overstating a finding. > And the nails in the wrists, not in the palms as in all medieval paintings or sculptures? The best current research has shown that Roman crucifixion was done by driving the nails through the palms, not the wrists. The wrists were tied to the crossbar, and a nail with a wooden washer was driven through the palm of the victim. This is a case where the medieval painting gets it correct. I know, we're all surprised by that. > And so on and on... I'm sorry but I don't see the usefullness of your work. Then maybe, you aren't all that critical about what you accept. Just saying.

[@silviosposito375]

@@ancientegyptandthebible the methodology is very important. To afford so much complex issues you must use a multidisciplinary approach not a reductionist one. The STURP team did so and did well. The radiocarbon dating ignored this principle. Wrong. They took one only sample from one edge where it was contaminated by the cotton of a medieval repair. The pollens come from all the sites where the Shroud was brought, not only Jerusalem. Only a radiant energy may explain the threedimensional qualities of the image. What you say around palms anf wrists is false: the palms wouldn't ever be able to sustain a human body and the Romans knew that very well. In substance, the radiocarbon dating contradicted all of the previous tests and researches (as the STURP' s ones and many others); on the contrary, the new x-ray test has given a result compatible with them, and this is very important in a multidisciplinary approach the one useful for complex matters. This is the theory of complexity. Sorry then, your arguments are weak and some even wrong.

[@ancientegyptandthebible]

@@silviosposito375 > the methodology is very important. Well, at least we agree there. > To afford so much complex issues you must use a multidisciplinary approach not a reductionist one. Again, I agree with this. > The STURP team did so and did well. There I disagree. I think their approach was shoddy and biased. > The radiocarbon dating ignored this principle. Wrong. How? > They took one only sample from one edge where it was contaminated by the cotton of a medieval repair. Not true. They took three samples. And gave each sample to different labs. The idea that there was cotton in all three samples is speculative and disputed. > The pollens come from all the sites where the Shroud was brought, not only Jerusalem. True. But are we not only considering those pollens that would suggest a source of origin? > Only a radiant energy may explain the threedimensional qualities of the image. Baloney. There are other explanations for the image. And the "3-D qualities" are a modern anachronism, irrelevant to the origins of the Shroud. And why must radiant energy be the source? And how much energy? > What you say around palms anf wrists is false: the palms wouldn't ever be able to sustain a human body and the Romans knew that very well. That's why the wrists were tied and a wooden washer was used with the nail. Think about that. I don't think you are aware of the latest research on this. > In substance, the radiocarbon dating contradicted all of the previous tests and researches (as the STURP' s ones and many others); STURP's research is shockingly bad. I'm not surprised the C-14 results contradicted it. > on the contrary, the new x-ray test has given a result compatible with them, and this is very important in a multidisciplinary approach the one useful for complex matters. Unfortunately, we have no confidence that the x-ray tests work. So, it doesn't matter if it is compatible with STURP's results, use of the method is self-disqualifying. > Sorry then, your arguments are weak and some even wrong. You don't know what you are talking about.

[@silviosposito375]

@@ancientegyptandthebible Sorry again: the sample from the edge was one from the same site and then divided in three parts for the three labs. The technique of Roman crucifixion is well known. But you have not answered to a key question: why chose this artist from the past to make a negative photographic image? Was he aware of photo techniques? But why negative, such a faint and elusive image?

[@ancientegyptandthebible]

@@silviosposito375 > Sorry again: No need to apologize. We encourage good faith discussion of these issues. 🙂 > the sample from the edge was one from the same site and then divided in three parts for the three labs. Is this not the same samples used for the other studies too? How is this invalid for the C-14 studies but valid for the other studies? > The technique of Roman crucifixion is well known. Well, sort of. There are some some details that have come to light in recent years. > But you have not answered to a key question: why chose this artist from the past to make a negative photographic image? Why is it a photographic negative image? You are superimposing an anachronism on the image. There are techniques from the past that account for this type of negative space artwork. > Was he aware of photo techniques? But why negative, such a faint and elusive image? It's not that he was unaware of photo techniques. It's more that WE ARE UNAWARE of any technique that would account for this other than photographic negatives. This is a kind of modernist fallacy, that is, the only possibilities are what is generally known today. Now, there were techniques in the past that could account for this, but they are generally not used today.

[@yoshiperspectives4880]

You're judgment of this mans words are super unbalanced. For example scrutinizing him for saying "Conventional methods" and then acting like he's excluding "unconventional methods". You're being dishonest. You began the video by contrasting expertise to laymen so I'm gonna hold you to that and expect you to know that ALL METHODS no matter how conventional or unconventional have been attempted to reproduce the shroud. Your argument against this man is dishonest semantics yet talking like you're an expert. Are you truly so dishonest, or just incapable of thinking through that reasonably? I'm only 6 minutes in and you're already displaying an severe lack of judgment or ability to criticize reasonably.

[@ancientegyptandthebible]

> You're being dishonest. You began the video by contrasting expertise to laymen so I'm gonna hold you to that and expect you to know that ALL METHODS no matter how conventional or unconventional have been attempted to reproduce the shroud. I never said claimed to know all methods, but I do know of some pretty unconventional methods of art production. This is why the mistake is to limit the possibilities only to what is conventional. You see, I'm not making that mistake because I'm not resorting to the black or white fallacy of "it must be conventional art methods or it is a miracle." Why can't their be another option? > Your argument against this man is dishonest semantics yet talking like you're an expert. I am an expert. And my argument is not semantics but serious methodological concerns. That you cannot recognize this shows your inability (or lack of knowledge) to engage in this conversation. > Are you truly so dishonest, or just incapable of thinking through that reasonably? People in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.

[@yoshiperspectives4880]

​@@ancientegyptandthebibleYour "expertise" means nothing. Unconventional artistic attempts were also attempted to duplicate the shroud but failed. His use of "conventional" was meant to mean "modern". You missed that? Your concerns are meaningless because you missed his whole point by criticizing his word choice.

[@ancientegyptandthebible]

@@yoshiperspectives4880 And you ignorance means less than that. You're opinion is worthless. 🤷‍♂

[@yoshiperspectives4880]

@@ancientegyptandthebible To someone who knows how an argument works and what a red herring and ad hominem attack is, my comment, rather than "opinion", is perfectly understandable and worth It's own salt. People who have good arguments don't immediately resort to ad hominem attacks. It makes your lack of knowledge very obvious. Nice front but anyone who knows better won't be fooled. You can't even address one of my arguments. You're obviously not even an expert. Just a random KZbinr.

[@ancientegyptandthebible]

@@yoshiperspectives4880 You know what an ad hominem attack is, right? At this point, it would surprise me if your argumentation rose above a sack of rocks. But that might be insulting to the rocks.

[@Liam-mm2to]

Dr falk has lost all credibility

[@samueljennings4809]

Because he disagrees with you? Is that how you treat your brother in Christ?

[@mkl2237]

Wrong, Dr Falk: the shroud is not “a Catholic thing”. It’s a Science thing and a Gospel of John thing. All… all of the STURP findings point to authenticity, except for the dating issue (which still remains open… that’s fair to say, though De Caro’s result is suggestive but not proof). Integrating all the data, the case is extremely strong. And it ain’t a Catholic thing. You said that up front in a video I saw and that’s a horrible premise to make… it speaks of YOUR bias and it undetermined your whole commentary. Flat out incorrect.

[@ancientegyptandthebible]

I think I said "more of a Catholic thing." That's a comparative term, not an absolute statement. STURP's findings are deeply flawed.

[@yoshiperspectives4880]

I'm now eleven minutes in and I just keep hearing you nit pic at his technical wording about things that matter absolutely nothing to the point being made and all the while you snickering at everything he says as if to look down at him for being a layman while you're such an expert. But in reality his video was packed with reasonable arguments while you're eleven minutes in and haven't said a single reasonable argument yet. I'll watch a little further to see if anything changes but so for you're only proving how truly foolish experts can be.

[@ancientegyptandthebible]

If think "his video was packed with reasonable arguments," you clearly don't have the critical thinking skills to understand this response. You should probably twaddle back to your VCR and your Ron Wyatt videos. That is clearly the level you are more comfortable with.

[@yoshiperspectives4880]

@@ancientegyptandthebible There you go, just looking down on someone as if they're less than you still without offering any argument even against what I actually said. Your reply is pure ad hominem.

[@ancientegyptandthebible]

@@yoshiperspectives4880 Hey, you're free to restate your point in a way that is more easily understood. But I don't think you have a point, just saying.

[@gregariousguru]

YOU WOULD NOT DO BLIND SAMPLING! Since we know there is restoration done to the artifact, it would be wise to avoid blind sampling for dating or analysis. Blind sampling involves collecting samples without knowledge of their source, which could lead to analyzing sections of the artifact that have been restored or are not original to the piece, like we see with the c14 dating that was deliberately botched. No reason to take the same route. But it ls mighty Protestants of you to suggest this ignorance. Smh

[@PBRimmer]

I think you misunderstand Falk's proposed methodology. The idea would be along the lines of the following: To take many linen samples of known age that are *not* part of the shroud or any other priceless artifact. The ages should ideally span something like 500 BC to present, and the samples should number > 50. The known ages should be kept secret from those performing the WAXS analysis. The date predicted by the analysis would then be compared to the known dates. Disagreement between the measured and known values would contribute to an accurate estimation of random error (if they follow a normal distribution) and any systematic deviation could be explored to try to determine its cause.

[@gregariousguru]

@@PBRimmer did the original carbon dating method in 1988 follow the same procedure, which was never in question to the authorities? .... .... remember they were 95% sure, but didn't release the full study until 25 years later.

[@PBRimmer]

@@gregariousguru To my understanding, 14C dating has been very well-established, I would guess it has been used to date >100,000 samples, a cursory search of the literature suggests the technique has undergone multiple blind analyses, and 14C is the technique De Caro et al. (2019) use for ground-truth comparison in their own WAXS study (see their Fig. 4), along with historical records. My understanding is that most experts who have looked into this accept the veracity of the 14C measurements of the shroud, including most experts who think the shroud is authentic. The ~700 year old date could accurately date the entire shroud, or it may only date a portion of the shroud that has been more recently repaired (I believe only one small section of the shroud was radiocarbon dated), or the miracle of Jesus's resurrection changed the amount of 14C in the shroud material. Or maybe there's some other explanation.

[@samueljennings4809]

Not sure what Protestantism has to do with it. There are Catholics who are skeptical of the Shroud also, and it is not a requirement given by the Holy See to venerate the Shroud as the burial shroud of Jesus. So whether you believe the Shroud is legitimate or not has nothing to do with Catholicism, at least not in and of itself.

[@spacemoose4726]

The shroud doesn't need to be included in a blind sampling to test the reliability of WAXS. If you think it's reliable, why wouldn't you want such a test done?

[@yoshiperspectives4880]

Your critic and argument is nothing because the dating portion of the evidence concerning the shroud is a fools errand anyways. If carbon dating dated it to the 13th century you can just explain it away by pointing out that carbon dating doesn't work well on an artifact that hasn't been isolated but rather has been constantly exposed to contaminants through the years. If another dating method shows it dates to the 1st century one could explain it away by saying that tbe artist or forger simply acquired a cloth in the 13th century that was from the 1st century. Therefore It's the other large amounts of strong evidence that points to it being the shroud of Yeshua that should be focused on and yet you choose to only focus on the meaningless studies you feel you can explain away and just ignore the other evidence to which you have NO OTHER hypothesis as to how the image could have gotten there wrapping a man that just died from crucifixion with thorns in his head and a hole in his side, as the "autopsy" of the shroud clearly shows, in the 13th century.

[@ancientegyptandthebible]

Who said anything about carbon dating? Only a numbskull starts to criticize before watching the video.

[@yoshiperspectives4880]

@@ancientegyptandthebible The carbon dating was done before. I didn't say YOU said something about carbon dating. I understand you're just criticizing the NEW dating method without any hypothesis of your own to the shroud itself. Only criticizing a fools errand. Your comment to me here is in like manner to your criticisms in the video. Ad hominem and red herring criticisms of me of saying you said something about carbon dating, which I didn't, attacking my character because of that falsehood, and then completely ignoring my actually point I was making about the big focus on DATING in general. I mentioned carbon dating as a contrast to the dating method like what you're criticizing in the video, so why don't you answer my actual point? Are you capable of that?

[@ancientegyptandthebible]

@@yoshiperspectives4880 > The carbon dating was done before. I didn't say YOU said something about carbon dating. So then what is relevance of what you said? > I understand you're just criticizing the NEW dating method without any hypothesis of your own to the shroud itself. I have a hypothesis of my own. It's just not part of this conversation. How is my not discussing it relevant? > Only criticizing a fools errand. Your comment to me here is in like manner to your criticisms in the video. Ad hominem and red herring criticisms of me of saying you said something about carbon dating, which I didn't, You brought up carbon dating. I didn't. You made the red herring. > attacking my character because of that falsehood, Well, you introduce the red herrings, that smell of rotting fish is on you. > and then completely ignoring my actually point I was making about the big focus on DATING in general. And that was the entire point of the De Caro et al paper, and this entire debate. Did you not get the memo? > I mentioned carbon dating as a contrast to the dating method like what you're criticizing in the video, so why don't you answer my actual point? Are you capable of that? And what point was that?

[@yoshiperspectives4880]

@@ancientegyptandthebible And now you're making textbook strawman arguments. You're arguing with me points that I didn't even make, or acting like I made a certain point, but the point I actually made was something entirely different. Thus you dodged my point with a strawman instead of giving a proper argument. You're now three for three. Ad hominem, red herring, and now the strawman argument. The three classics that someone with no good answer uses. Since your reply was a strawman and Therefore essentially not about anything i was actually saying It's irrelevant to me.

[@ancientegyptandthebible]

@@yoshiperspectives4880 > And now you're making textbook strawman arguments. You're arguing with me points that I didn't even make, or acting like I made a certain point, but the point I actually made was something entirely different. Okay, if I did that, I'm willing to let it go and let you properly formulate your argument. > Thus you dodged my point with a strawman instead of giving a proper argument. What strawman was that? > You're now three for three. Ad hominem, red herring, and now the strawman argument. The three classics that someone with no good answer uses. Since your reply was a strawman and Therefore essentially not about anything i was actually saying It's irrelevant to me. I have not seen a proper argument from you. I'm at a loss to even guess what your argument would be.

[@anthonypereira3272]

Dr Falk is discussing the experimental errors with the methodology adopted. No experimental method is without possible errors. It is well known that the ultimate diagnosis depends on an holistic approach using the total experience of other tests. We do this in all cases even in medicine. So often tests may not exhibit what should be expected. It must be accepted that the sample cocerned is one that that has various unnatural phenomenon in it body. One needs a more open mind and not a negative mindset. Falk is trying to prove all is wrong. Not a good scientist.

[@ancientegyptandthebible]

The FDA may beg to differ with you on that one. If you created a pharmaceutical and your method has not been validated, you could kill people. They are trying to prove the date the Shroud with an unvalidated method. That's being a bad scientist.

[@viktordoe1636]

Why do you talk about yourself in plural?

[@bc4yt]

He doesn't.

[@ancientegyptandthebible]

Because two of us were involved in the critique: me and my producer.

[@samueljennings4809]

@viktordoe1636 He involves his producer in the discussion.

[@viktordoe1636]

Ok, it seems i missed that part.

[@isaakleillhikar8311]

Because kings talk like that. Didn’t you know ?