The Shroud of Turin is NOT Authentic | Debunking the Shroud ep.3 (Art, Pollen, & Patterns)

In our last installment (for now), we're going to talk about art history, pollen, and other patterns with the Shroud of Turin, and why we think the Shroud is not the authentic burial cloth of Jesus.
Interact with us:
Twitter: / pressx_todoubt
Facebook: / reason2doubt
Podcast: reason2doubt.podbean.com
Citations
Raes, Gilbert, ‘The Textile Study of 1973-1974’, Shroud Spectrum International, Issue 38/39, 1991
Vial, Gabriel, ‘Shrouded in Mystery’, HALI (The International Magazine of Fine Carpets and Textiles), Issue 49, 1990
Boi, M. “POLLEN ON THE SHROUD OF TURIN: THE PROBABLE TRACE LEFT BY ANOINTING AND EMBALMING.” Archaeometry, 2016, doi: 10.1111/arcm.12269.
De Wesselow, Thomas. The Shroud of Turin and the Secret of the Resurrection. Penguin Group, 2012.
Monson, Tesla, et al. “Allometric Variation in Modern Humans and the Relationship Between Body Proportions and Elite Athletic Success.” Journal of Anthropology of Sport and Physical Education, 2018, DOI 10.26773/jaspe.180701.
Wilson, Ian. The Shroud: The 2000-Year-Old Mystery Solved. 2011.
Timestamps
0:00 - Intro Video
0:45 - Summary & setting expectations
3:50 - Pray Codex aka Hungarian Pray Codex
9:50 - Pray Codex - No thumbs
11:40 - Pray Codex - Jesus is naked
13:15 - Pray Codex - Weave pattern & burns
21:50 - Pray Codex - No beard
22:45 - Lack of peer reviewed data on the Shroud's history
26:00 - Images throughout history
29:10 - Ian Wilson's amazing theory
34:45 - Pollen on the Shroud
38:30 - Weave pattern on the Shroud
43:05 - Body proportions
49:50 - Is the Shroud of Turin authentic?
52:30 - What surprised us
54:00 - "Fallacy" of the Day: BS asymmetry principle
#shroudofturin #atheism #jesus #history #christianity

[@ReasontoDoubt]

CORRECTIONS: - Geoffroi de Charny, the French knight who shows up with the Shroud in the 14th century, died in 1356 before the public exhibition about 35 years later. The exhibition was done by his descendants, and the Shroud remained in that family until it was given to the Savoy family in 1532. - Frei-Sulzer *did* study botany (though he was most well known as a criminologist). His conclusions have since been rejected by other botanists, but he did have relevant expertise.

[@henrimourant9855]

I think you need to repin this... Does it unpin when you edit it?

[@ReasontoDoubt]

@@henrimourant9855 I bet that's what it is. That would explain the mysterious unpinning. That makes sense if I had pinned someone else's comment (so I can't pin it, then they edit it to make me look like an idiot) but if I'm pinning MY comment you'd think KZbin would realize I want people to see it

[@Yahshua_is_Yahweh]

22:24 Who told you that Jesus didn't have a beard? If you look at the picture carefully, you can see some beard patches around the face.

[@Yahshua_is_Yahweh]

In this Image Jesus still has his stubbly chin, he is naked, his wrists crossed over his groin, and his hands only have four fingers. But you are trying to say "it is COMMON".............No Logic😂😂😂

[@henrimourant9855]

@@Yahshua_is_Yahweh While I absolutely don't think the image is of the shroud of Turin I partly kinda agree with you and think Jesus has some stubble in the codex depiction (but not a beard). You can see it with a high quality photo of the codex (little lines around his jaw and chin line). But regardless it's clearly not like what's depicted on the Shroud. He clearly doesn't have the thick beard you see in the Shroud (and there's no hair under his nose like you see on the shroud).

[@zwiggle-bear]

Few things to consider..... Thumbs aren't shown because of where the stakes were placed in the wrists. Placing a stake in the wrist at those locations causes a muscular atrophy to the thumbs drawing them in. The right shoulder was broken or dislocated due to the hanging. Holes in the cross were pre established, so after one arm was nailed down, if the other arm didn't reach, it was stretched or broken to fit the length. Or so other research has shown. At the end of the day, it's super interesting regarding the image and no one to this day can definitively explain it.

[@hughfarey3734]

Hi LZSMama, good of you to comment. I wonder where you got the information that a "stake in the wrist" causes a |muscular atrophy" that draws the thumbs in. It was originally Pierre Barbet who came up with that idea, but photographs of his experiments with cadavers do not support it, and few subsequent pathologists have agreed with him. Anybody investigating damage to the median nerve, which is usually thought to be responsible, can find references to "claw hand," "ape hand," or "benediction hand," and "carpal tunnel syndrome," but none of these produces straight fingers and a retracted thumb. Similarly, I fear your imaginative reconstruction of the pre-drilled holes in a Roman crucifix is not justified by any archaeology, description or contemporary drawing. It is an ad hoc explanation for the length of the Shroud image's arms, but not otherwise evidenced.

[@zwiggle-bear]

@Hugh Farey I watched and read so many lately I cannot recall exactly where I sourced this from, but will do some digging to see if I can recount the paper or film on it. Stay tuned.

[@InquisitiveBible]

I've read quite a bit about Roman crucifixion, and I've never heard any of this. Most crucifixions probably used rope instead of nails, and the Synoptic Gospels, which are earlier than John, never mention nails.

[@gonzalocastillo749]

Thumbs aren’t shown because he’s in rigor mortis

[@Bass_Nomad.]

where you actually there or did you read it in a book about how earth was made in 6 days, wizzards splitting the sea and a dude in a whale?

[@hughfarey3734]

Hi Jordan and Jared, Thanks for a splendid final episode, with which I almost entirely agree, especially the shout-out you gave me! If there's any way I can help your further researches, I'll be delighted to help.

[@DapperDinosaur]

My only note is that the shroud wouldn't be ancient even if it were 1st c.

[@ReasontoDoubt]

It would need to be like 100M years old to count as ancient to a dinosaur, so that's fair

[@curiouspeanut]

I wish this was released a little earlier, I might have to miss the premier. Looking forward to it 😊

[@ReasontoDoubt]

We're still figuring out the best time for a premiere, maybe next time it'll be earlier!

[@curiouspeanut]

@@ReasontoDoubt thanks 😁

[@mf_hume]

This series has been fun, so thanks for all the effort that went into it. Very timely, too, since apparently Capturing Christianity is now inclined toward accepting the shroud. I hope it’s not the start of a trend toward shroud acceptance in mainstream apologetics…

[@ReasontoDoubt]

We definitely seem to have timed our videos right in the middle of a wave of Shroud videos. I can't tell if that's actually the case, or if it's like when you buy a car and suddenly see the same model of car everywhere (because now you're noticing them)

[@mf_hume]

@@ReasontoDoubt I started getting KZbin recs for shroud videos as soon as I watched your first one (thanks a lot…) so hopefully it’s just that…

[@discoveringthegardenofeden7882]

Well, the nice gentlemen in the video don't seem to be able to debunk it. They conclude with plausibility arguments, which is not a definite conclusion regarding truth and veracity.

[@mf_hume]

@@discoveringthegardenofeden7882 Right! This is an empirical claim, and empirical claims aren’t going to have a decisive proof or disproof.

[@thestudyofchristianity]

Thank you so much for these videos. I’ve watched all 3 and thoroughly enjoyed your research. It’s refreshing to have people talking about the shroud who also value the peer review process I frankly don’t know what to think of the shroud. For these reasons: 1) I find it astounding we don’t know how it is made. I might just has an overinflated view of how smart we are in the 21st century. But I feel we should know if it was an artist 2) the nails are in the wrists and ankles which is consistent with Roman crucifixion (and counter to most ancient/medieval art) 3) The photonegative and 3D properties are interesting 4) your video on the carbon dating was great, but I still feel we need further testing to confirm

[@ReasontoDoubt]

I'm glad you've found it useful! We ended up cutting it from the video, but Hugh Farey (I think it was him, anyway) had some interesting pictures showing the angles between knuckles and nail holes on the Shroud are actually right in line with what you see depicted in medieval art. You can probably find it with some googling. His work isn't peer reviewed but it's worth looking at. I wish the church would allow more thorough examinations of the Shroud, though. A lot of our questions could be put to rest if scientists were given better access, I think.

[@jesserochon3103]

@@ReasontoDoubt not the original poster but I too appreciate your unbiased research. The shroud is certainly a very interesting relic that keeps me up a night some times. We need to do further testing. I want answers!

[@Markodude]

Here’s a thought- what if the shroud was a forgery but a real person was used to create it? They were killed and crucified on the cross to make it look authentic? Another thing- people weren’t stupid. They surely would have known that Jesus had the nails in his wrists.

[@ansfridaeyowulfsdottir8095]

Oh, great, I've been looking forward to this. But from your opening statements, did you initially set out to debunk the shroud, or to examine all the evidence and decide if it was genuine or fake? {:o:O:}

[@ReasontoDoubt]

Before we did our deep dive we did not think it likely the Shroud was genuine, but we try our best to be open to having our minds changed by the evidence. That didn't happen this time because we didn't find the evidence to be persuasive, but it has happened in the past.

[@ansfridaeyowulfsdottir8095]

@@ReasontoDoubt Yes, I agree with you. Most of the shroud proponents are like YECs, they often just lie through their teeth and they know it. Like _"The pollen ONLY existed in Palestine around the 1st century AD!"_ and _"That type of weave in the shroud was ONLY used in Palestine around the 1st century AD!"_ If they have to wilfully lie, just to convince their sheep, there's something decidedly fishy about ALL their "evidence". {:o:O:}

[@Overonator]

I watched all 3 videos but I don't recall discussion of the letter saying it was a fraud by Bishop Pierre D'Arcis sent to Antipope Clement VII in 1389 which is circa when the radiometric dating dates the shroud. Is my memory bad? I'm not finding it, I'm using the time stamps in the videos.

[@ReasontoDoubt]

We mention it in passing in episode 1 for sure (around 5:40), when discussing the undisputed timeline of the Shroud. Think we mentioned it in episode 2 later on, Jared has pointed out that the instant the Shroud shows up on the scene people were doubting its authenticity at least twice. We personally don't put much evidentiary weight on that letter since few details were provided and there seems to be at least some disconfirming evidence that it was painted, but we do mention it.

[@Overonator]

@@ReasontoDoubt My bad thanks for the time code. Thet date of letter (1389) overlaps with the carbon dating so that to me screams 2 independent piece of evidence pointing in the same direction, it being a 13th to 14 century pious fraud.

[@ReasontoDoubt]

@@Overonator For me the carbon dating matching neatly with its first appearance in history speaks volumes. The radiocarbon dating is flawed, but not to the extent that I think it ought to be completely ignored like Shroud proponents often want to do.

[@ansfridaeyowulfsdottir8095]

This was a great round up to the series. I'd never heard of Brandolini's Law, so I had to look it up. Very entertaining. I think it formalises the effectiveness of the Gish Gallop. {:0:):}

[@robertrucker5084]

[Continued] Argument 3. “This seems to be pereidolia in action where the brain looks for patterns that aren’t really there.” (20:47) Response 3. This is not pereidolia because everyone can see there is a four-hole pattern in the shape of an “L” with three holes straight in line with the fourth hole turned at a ninety degree angle. Argument 4. “This dude doesn’t have a beard.” (22:22) Response 4. If you look at an enlarged version of the top image, you should be able to see that Jesus does have a beard except that it is shorter than the longer beards on two of the other men in the top image. Argument 5. “In the grand scheme of things that (the Pray codex) would push it (the date) back, what, like 70 years, you know, they needed to go all the way back to the first century, right? So that’s not good enough.” (22:48) Response 5. This is not true. The uncorrected mean (average) carbon date for the Shroud was 1260 ± 31 years, where 31 years is the one sigma uncertainty (68% probability limit) on the 1260 date. The corrected range of 1260 to 1390 AD is calculated assuming that the correct mean date is 1260 ± 31 years, which has been invalidated by four papers in peer reviewed journals. This means that the corrected range of 1260-1390 should also be given no credibility. If we ignore the fact that his corrected range of 1260-1390 should have no credibility, this range is stated to be a two sigma range, which means there should be about a 95% probability that the true value is within in this range. The date for the Pray codex is stated to be 1192 to 1195, which is more than two sigma below the 1260-1390 range [(1260 - 1195)/31 = 2.1 sigma]. The normal criterion for acceptance in statistical analysis is two sigma. The range of 1260-1390 is two sigma and the date for the Pray codex is another 2.1 sigma below the carbon date range of 1260-1390. This means that if the image in the Pray codex is the Shroud of Turin, which was proven above, then the date for the Pray codex (1192-1195) disproves the carbon date range or 1260-1390. There is no need for the Pray codex to date “all the way back to the first century”, because with a date of 1192-1195 for the Pray codex, it disproves the carbon date of 1260-1390, thus arriving at the same conclusion (the carbon dating should be given no credibility) as the four papers that were published in peer reviewed journals. It is not necessary for the Pray codex to date to the first century. As discussed above under Claim #2, there are other date indicators that take the Shroud back to the time of Jesus: • Stitch connecting side piece to main Shroud is from 1st century  Shroud is 1st century. • Spectroscopy and tensile strength of Shroud threads  33 B.C.  250 years • Radiation damage to Shroud fibers similar to Dead Sea Scrolls  250 B.C. to 70 AD. Argument 6. There are no peer reviewed papers on the history of the Shroud of Turin. Response 6. A paper can be entirely true or contain errors whether it is peer reviewed or not, so the important thing for us to do is to consider the evidence carefully whether the paper is peer reviewed or not. Much and possibly most of the historical research on the Shroud of Turin appears to be in Italian, French, or Spanish, and much of the ancient documentation is in Latin. The most recent book in English on the history of the Shroud is a 2021 book by historian Jack Markwardt titled “The Hidden History of the Shroud of Turin”. This book discusses many issues related to the history of the Shroud of Turin in 384 pages. At the back of his book, he lists 29 pages of references and 54 pages of notes to those references. This indicates there has been a massive amount of research and documentation on the history of the Shroud of Turin. I believe the conclusion of this massive effort is that historical documentation, due to the lack of very early documents, does not prove that the Shroud of Turin is the burial cloth of Jesus, but neither does it disprove it. And in many respects, the history that can be known about the Shroud of Turin is consistent with what would be expected for Jesus’ burial cloth. The conclusion that the Shroud of Turin is the burial cloth of Jesus is based not in historical documentation but in the characteristics of the images on the Shroud, the scientific research on the Shroud, and the efforts to explain the evidence related to characteristics of the full size front and back images that can be seen on the Shroud.

[@damienthorne861]

Well I have to say, this was extraordinarily well done and presented adequately its questioning. Though I am an atheist and I detest religion ( after spending 4 years in seminary in my youth), go figure.... I have not seen any evidence from either side that definitely proves their opinion.

[@gonzalocastillo749]

The shroud has been repaired , it’s survived fires and it’s been doused with water. Thats why the carbon dating has been shown to be a false reading because they sampled the repaired area which would’ve happened in that timeframe. We know this because the shroud is 100% linen, and the sample they took had cotton fibers woven in, proving that the carbon dating isn’t reflective of the actual shroud. The 3 universities that took the sample withheld the information for 27 years, I wonder why

[@ObjectiveEthics]

​@@damienthorne861 I'm surprised you failed to notice that the OP attempted to claim "there are four peer reviewed papers which debunk the carbon dating of the shroud". But he doesn't cite a single source on that. Additionally he later says (in an apologists attempt to explain that the fact there are no peer reviewed articles on the shroud) "peer reviews are not definite evidence and have no value in this discussion". *Note: I am paraphrasing his second quote. You can see the actual contradictions word for word in his own arguments that he wrote.

[@damienthorne861]

@@ObjectiveEthics Thank you I'm always ready and willing to learn the truth whatever that is. I don't want my predilections to obscure and distort my perception of reality. I find that carbon dating on the periphery of the shroud in my opinion is suspect because we know that the shroud had been in a fire in what was it, the 12th or 13th century? They need to take a big enough piece of the cloth from the middle of it and carbon date that. The problem with that though is that it's still circumstantial although circumstantial in favor of something supernatural at least something that cannot be explained by our science to this point. If they carbon date a patch from the middle of the shroud or find pollen or anything that would substantially indicate that the shroud was first century, then I think one can make an argument that may very well be the burial cloth of Jesus Christ. My nescience speaks volumes here obviously.

[@ObjectiveEthics]

@@damienthorne861 I am an agnostic and, like you, I only want to ground my life in reality. I think having a willingness to listen to others with an open mind is the only way to truly be objective. However, I also fact check everything. In regards to the carbon dating of the shroud, the contamination due to fire hypothesis has been de bunked. It's true that smoke damage could leave contamination on the shroud. What apologists are not telling you is that all three organizations that did the independent tests were well aware of the fires made the correct adjustments for that contamination. Also, if the contamination of the shroud was significant enough to push the actual date from the 1st century ce 1,200 years into the future there would need to be enough contamination that it would be visible under a simple microscope (60%+ contamination) which is not even remotely what the evidence shows. As far as the pollen hypothesis that has been de bunked. The pollen hypothesis that tries to claim these pollens could be dated to the first century ce was made by a forensic analysis not by a botanist. There have been numerous botanists who have pointed out that this is a gross misunderstanding of how pollen genetics actually works. There are no plants that can be traced to an exact region and period of time with that precision (Palestine circa 100 ce). And the first botanists to point this out were a group of botanists who were Christians and actually believe the shroud is real. But they acknowledge that the evidence that points to the pollen is actually false. So this cannot be hand waved away saying "only atheist botanists said that blah blah blah".

[@Nocturius_Fi-Core]

Thanks for this Shroud of Turin three-episode long! I'm one of those who join your channel because of it. ;^p I will surely watch your other videos in time. I found you guys because you are in the few skeptics who debunked it. Last week, my father-in-law talks to my boyfriend and I in a very excited tone about the Shroud because he just saw a ''documentary'' on KZbin about it. He said they were lot of seculars and non-christians ( jews) scientists who ''proved'' the veracity of the Shroud and its unexpected (miraculous) proprieties. He saids big words like ''NASA technology, nuclear physics, pollens, criminology investigation etc, ''. It smells like woo-woo bullshit disguise as science to me, but I didn't know what part was shitty and what part was right since I don't know the topic. Personally, I didn't care if the Shroud was genuine or not, but I care when ''documentary'' use cherry picked science claims mixted with woo-woo to tell plot-driven stories. So, your videos help me to understand what he was talking about on some aspects. I really want to be better at recognized fake from true for my own sake, but I also wish to get better with my street epistemology skills. Sometime when my step-father talks about spiritual stuff I try to ask questions like if his sources are solids or if it is some rando online. He is 70+ yo, I know he doesn't fully knows how to recognize peers-reviews stuffs from near-conspiracy theory stuff.

[@ReasontoDoubt]

Welcome to the channel! It's hard to sort out good sources from bad sometimes, especially with the rise of predatory "journals" that look peer reviewed but really aren't. Maybe we should do an episode on that!

[@jimjohn9041]

These guys have missed so much it’s not even worth trying to dive into. My thumbs would numb. Best to do your own research I suppose. People are bending over backwards trying to disprove that a shroud was laid on a body.

[@alienpov]

Geoffroi de Charny, most likely brought this home from a crusade or had someone make it to attract people to his church or shrine which in turn brings in the money. Always follow the money.

[@henrimourant9855]

Ok so just a tiny correction you said at 4:11 that it was Geoffroi de Charny (the same one from the first time it was on display) that put it up for display for the second time in 1389 when it was actually probably his son that did that (his name was also Geoffroi though so it's confusing lol). Geoffroi de Charny (the first one) died in 1356 at the famous battle of Poitiers. Also it should be noted that (at least according to an article by Hugh Farey that I read) it's possible the shroud wasn't initially put on public display at his chapel until shortly after he died at the battle but that's debatable.

[@ReasontoDoubt]

You're absolutely right, I even mentioned that he died in battle in the first video but still said that here. Should have said it was done by his family. I'll add it to the pinned comment

[@hwwbroward8322]

Agreed about Pray codex. Always thought that they should not bring that up as evidence.

[@kevinkingmaker7395]

Your point about Jesus being beardless in the Pray Codex seems to dispose of it as plausible evidence of a pre-13th century Shroud.

[@InquisitiveBible]

My apologies if this gets answered elsewhere in the video (I'm only partway through), but if you found Christian artwork showing Jesus in the "shroud" pose that predates the shroud, surely that's not evidence that the Shroud is old, but rather, evidence that the Shroud forger was basing his design on an artistic trend that already existed in his day.

[@ReasontoDoubt]

That would be a possible explanation for that, but I think that it would be a much stronger argument for an older age of the SoT than the Pray Codex is

[@snowflakemelter1172]

How do you get an image of long hair at the sides of your head as if you are standing while you are dead and lying down ?

[@ReasontoDoubt]

That's a good question. Proponents who think the image was made from an imprinted body have to explain why the image isn't distorted as you'd expect for an image imprinted on a draped cloth. The going explanation atm is radiation that was also vertical for some reason (the reason: magic)

[@Vikenstein]

Why did they show in the codex a weave scheme? Why was it so important? How could we know that those L shapes holes werent painted later...

[@ReasontoDoubt]

We don't think it's obvious that what is in the Codex is intended to be a weave pattern.

[@Vikenstein]

@@ReasontoDoubt you are giving a proper argument. Why there is no jesus image on that thing with the "weave pattern"🤣 if there was jesus image on that thing with the "weave pattern" the painter would paint it, because it would be super important to have real image of Jesus. Imo the creator of the shroud mistakenly assumed that the thing with the "weave pattern" is a shroud so he made these holes on purpose to authenticate the shroud.

[@ReasontoDoubt]

@Vikenstein So you're thinking that the artist who made the Shroud copied the Pray Codex, not the other way around?

[@Vikenstein]

@@ReasontoDoubt It could be one of the options. I personally can't understand - assuming that the squary thing in the picture is an actual shroud and not something else - why the author of that picture didn't paint the image of jesus on it? Let's imagine you are an ultra orthodox christian and you have in your posession such an artifact. You put the image of it in the picture for future generations and you forget to paint the most important element -image of Jesus! Completely unlogic! If I were such a person it would be the central point in that picture, big shiny image of Jesus in the middle of the shroud.

[@ReasontoDoubt]

@Vikenstein The response I've seen from Shroud supporters on that is that the artist wasn't skilled enough to include and image, and/or it may have appeared as if Jesus was still in the tomb which would be heretical. I don't think that's compelling personally, though.

[@logioso]

Does not the head look small in proportion to the body in the Shroud?

[@ReasontoDoubt]

We saw that claim being discussed in some blogs, but we couldn't substantiate it ourselves so we chose not to include it.

[@JerryPenna]

I’d need to see a 13 century chain of custody that ties this to Jesus. Good luck!

[@ReasontoDoubt]

Hopefully the Knights Templar kept receipts!

[@Gazman67]

I need proof that it's fake

[@shaypenton8854]

Cool with "cell walls rna dna & proteins poofed into existence within 4 hours of each other 2.4 billion years ago" story tho

[@robertrucker5084]

[Continued from my previous comment.] The recent papers in peer-reviewed journals confirm the above statements. In Ref. 3 (Casabianca, et al.), based on their statistical analysis of the measured carbon dates, the last sentence concludes that “it is not possible to affirm that the 1988 radiocarbon dating offers “conclusive evidence” that the calendar age range is accurate and representative of the whole cloth”. On page 13 of Ref. 4 (Di Lazzaro, et al.), the authors conclude that “Clearly, the statistical analysis do not unveil the correct age of the Shroud”, i.e., they could not determine the true age of the Shroud from an analysis of the measurement data because the data was heterogeneous. On page 7 of Ref. 5 (Walsh & Schwalbe), their statistical analysis of the measured values identified “a statistically significant heterogeneity in the dates reported for the Shroud sample” and that “this finding would preclude the step of combining the individual data sets and reporting the mean date as was done” in Ref. 1 (Damon, et al.). Page 2 of Ref. 6 (Schwalbe and Walsh) confirms that a legitimate average value cannot be calculated from heterogeneous values: “researchers analyzed the raw data and conclude that the results from the three laboratories are statistically heterogeneous, a condition that according to standard analytical procedure precludes these dates from being combined to produce an accurate and unbiased average”. This means that standard analytical procedures applied to the measured carbon dates requires that the uncorrected average value stated in Ref. 1 (1260 ± 31) and hence the corrected range (1260 to 1390 AD) should both be rejected, i.e. given no credibility. Thus, it is not legitimate to claim that the 1988 carbon dating of the corner of the Shroud accurately dated the Shroud to 1260-1390 AD. Three potential causes for this systematic measurement error that led to the heterogeneous measurement dates are: 1) a reweaving with newer thread/fabric into the original linen fabric of the Shroud, 2) neutron capture produced new C-14 in the threads that shifted the carbon date in the forward direction, and 3) inadequate cleaning that left contamination with a different ratio of C-14 to C-12 on the samples. Such inadequate cleaning was not observed in the carbon dating of the three standards (samples from cloth of known historical dates) that were dated by the three laboratories at the same time as the samples from the Shroud. It may be asked why the analysis in Damon (Ref. 1) did not report the presence of a systematic measurement error that caused the carbon dates to be heterogeneous. The goal of the dating laboratories was to validate their relatively new small sample dating technique that they used on the Shroud samples. To admit that their measurements resulted in heterogeneous dates would disprove their small sample dating technique. To avoid this conclusion, they assumed, without justification, that the measurement uncertainties were understated, saying “it is unlikely that the errors quoted by the laboratories for sample 1”, i.e. samples from the Shroud, “fully reflect the overall scatter” (page 6 of Ref. 1). This assumption hid the fact that the measured dates were heterogeneous (not consistent with each other within their uncertainties) due to the presence of a systematic measurement error. It may also be asked why the recent papers on the statistical analysis of the carbon dates were delayed till 2019 when the experiments were performed in 1988 and were reported in 1989 (Ref. 1). The answer is that distribution of the raw measurement data was controlled by the British Museum who refused to release the data until forced to do so by legal action taken by T. Casabianca in 2017. This legal action involved several Freedom Of Information Act (FOIA) requests sent to the British Museum (page 2 of Ref. 3). Ref. 1 P.E. Damon, and 20 others, “Radiocarbon Dating of the Shroud of Turin”, Nature, February 16, 1989, Ref. 2 Robert A. Rucker, “The Carbon Dating Problem for the Shroud of Turin, Part 2: Statistical Analysis”, August 7, 2018, paper 12 on the research page Shroud Research Network. Ref. 3 T. Casabianca, E. Marinelli, G. Pernagallo, and B. Torrisi, “Radiocarbon Dating of the Turin Shroud: New Evidence from Raw Data”, 2019, Archaeometry, 61(5), 1223-1231 Ref. 4 Paolo Di Lazzaro, Anthony C. Atkinson, Paola Iacomussi, Marco Riani, Marco Ricci, and Peter Wadhams, “Statistical and Proactive Analysis of an Inter-Laboratory Comparison: The Radiocarbon Dating of the Shroud of Turin”, Entropy, August 24, 2020 Ref. 5 Bryan Walsh and Larry Schwalbe, “An Instructive Inter-Laboratory Comparison: The 1988 Radiocarbon Dating of the Shroud of Turin”, Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports, Volume 29, February 2020 Ref. 6 Bryan Walsh and Larry Schwalbe, “On Cleaning Methods and the Raw Radiocarbon Data from the Shroud of Turin”, International Journal of Archeology, 2021; 9(1):10-16

[@SabracadabrO]

Nonsense,another religious grift,your Jesus Hiroshima photo is laughable,but I guess it’s easy to keep fooling the already fooled..,shameful

[@robertrucker5084]

[Continued] Claim #3. The Pray codex pictures Jesus’ sarcophagus and not Jesus’ burial cloth, so that the Pray codex does not contradict the carbon dating. There are very good “reasons to doubt” this claim. I will respond to each of their arguments. Argument 1: In the upper image, the crossed hands without thumbs is the main evidence that the upper image is Jesus, even though thumbs are often not shown in Byzantine art. Response 1. No, the main evidence that the upper image is Jesus is the nimbus (halo) around his head. This nimbus pictures a cross behind his head, as if he is standing in front of his cross. Coming horizontally out from behind the sides of his head are the left and right sides of the horizontal beam (patibulum) of the cross and a section of the vertical beam (stipes) is shown going vertically up behind his head. The design of this nimbus is uniquely used for Jesus and so definitely identifies him as Jesus. Other arguments are irrelevant compared to the evidence of this nimbus. Argument 2. When the Pray codex is compared to other such scenes in Byzantine art, it indicates that the Pray codex is not depicting Jesus’ burial cloth but is depicting his sarcophagus with its lid at an angle. The stair-step arrangement on the lid is just a decoration. On the middle of the lid is something that looks like a cloth, so should be identified with Jesus’ burial cloth, as shown in other such scenes in Byzantine art. The four holes in an “L” shaped pattern is the main argument that this is depicting the Shroud of Turin. The Pray codex contains two other pictures (shown at 19:48 and 20:13) that use many circles as decorations, so the four holes in an “L” shaped pattern in the bottom image is only there because the author is “trying to make it look fancy” (20:20). Response 2. The similarities between the Pray codex and the scenes of similar motif in Byzantine art in no way prevent the artist of the Pray codex from inserting differences for his own purposes. This is proven by the many differences in this general motif (see 15:36 to 17:13 in the video and Figure 9 of Ref. 7): 1) The lid of the box is included in most scenes but is not included in others. 2) The lid, if included, is off the box (sarcophagus) in most scenes but can be on top of the box. 3) Roman guards are present in some scenes but not in others. 4) Most scenes that include the guards have the guards asleep, but they can also be awake. 5) Three women are in some scenes but other scenes have one, two, four, or no women. 6) In most scenes the women are holding containers of material presumably to anoint Jesus’ body but in other scenes they are not holding containers. 7) In some scenes each woman has a nimbus (halo) around her head but in others they do not. 8) Some scenes include men as well as women. 9) Some scenes include Jesus after his resurrection but others do not. 10) One scene shows Jesus stepping out of his burial box but most do not. 11) Most scenes include one angel but others include two angles or no angels. 12) Most boxes and lids are decorated but of the 16 scenes reviewed of this motif, only two used circles as part of the decoration. It should be obvious from this that there is great flexibility in Byzantine art so that the artist of the Pray codex can depict Jesus’ burial cloth if he wants to, even though most scenes in this motif depict a box (sarcophagus) and often its lid, either to the side or on top of the box.

[@anthonycraig274]

I can’t believe I watch this show to the end. Congratulations ❤

[@richardstanleyjr1455]

I’m rather surprised at your dismissiveness of Ian Wilson and his books. I would like to take you up on your offer to do a book review of his latest book. I have found Ian Wilson to be a very fair writer, and I don’t believe he has ever argued that he has proven the Shroud to be authentic. All he tries to do in his books is provide a possible historical basis for the Shroud prior to it being in France. And as for that, I believe he does make a reasonable case that the Shroud may have been in Edessa and Constantinople prior to appearing in France. Here are a number of points drawn from Ian Wilson’s books that I would like you to address in your book review when you get to it. First, there was most certainly an image of some kind in Edessa / Constantinople that was considered to be acheiropoietos (not made by human hands). Second, whatever this image was, it was considered so valuable that Constantinople (controlled by Byzantine Christians) forced Edessa (controlled by the Muslims) to give it up in 944. This exchange happened under the threat of a huge Byzantine army that would have taken over Edessa, and instead, Constantinople’s army happily returned home with nothing except this image (they even gave Edessa silver to encourage them to give up the image). Third, if the Shroud is authentic and existed prior to appearing in France, the most logical place for it to have been during part of its journey would have been Constantinople since Constantinople was the center of Christianity in the East and closest to the origin of Christianity in Jerusalem. As such, Constantinople was famous for the Christian relics that were kept there. Fourth, it is well-known that Constantinople was sacked by the Crusaders in 1204 and that the Crusaders stole much of the wealth of Constantinople to cover the costs that they believed they were owed. Also, the Byzantine Empire which was centered in Constantinople was in decline at the time of 1204 and fell further into decline thereafter, and one way or the other most of its Christian relics were taken at various times away from Constantinople. Fifth, concerning the Knights Templar, I don’t believe Ian Wilson ever says that there is definitive proof that they were the conduit for the Shroud passing from Constantinople to France. He only raises this as a logical possibility (with some support), but he readily admits that there are other possible routes that it might have followed. And yet, the Knights Templar do fit quite well as a possible route. They were devout; they were secretive; they were very powerful and wealthy at the time until 1312 when the king of France dismantled them (very shortly before the Shroud appeared in Lirey); and there may have been connections between the Knights Templar and Geoffrey I de Charny, the first known owner of Shroud. I just think there is far too much to Ian Wilson’s hypothesis to be easily dismissed and am looking forward to your review of his latest book.

[@ReasontoDoubt]

Again, there may be more in the book so I will reserve final judgment until I read it...but mostly that strikes me as a "just-so" sort of explanation. Sure, those things *could* be a way to explain the Shroud getting from Israel to France, if one were inclined to need such an explanation. But is the evidence for them sufficient to render it probable?

[@hughfarey3734]

Hi Richard, and thanks for submitting a researched and reasoned comment. Ian Wilson was a towering figure in Shroud studies for thirty years or so, and even though he has somewhat 'gone to ground' in New Zealand, his latest book, with Nigel Bryant, on the works of Geoffroi de Charny is a real contribution to medieval scholarship. However, he very much ploughs a lone furrow in attempting to associate the Image of Edessa with the Shroud. Byzantine history, both secular and ecclesiastical, is a well-trampled field, but there are vanishingly few researchers who agree with his suggestion that the Image was somehow the folded Shroud, clamped in a frame. No descriptions, illustrations or references supports such a hypothesis, and the fact that Jesus's burial cloths and the Image are both mentioned, as separate objects in separate places, by numerous pilgrims to Constantinople tends to reinforce their being distinct. Of course, a vast number of relics in Western Europe derive from the sack of Constantinople, and if the Shroud were authentic, Constantinople could well have been part of its backstory, but a plausible history does not, in itself, do anything to authenticate an artefact. The connection with the Templars is also, I fear, entirely speculative. There is, to be sure, a strange coincidence between the names of the two Geoffroi de Charn(e)ys, but very little else to connect them. There were at least three different 'Charn(e)y' families, and they do not seem to have been related in any but the most general way - in the sense that the French aristocracy was a fairly small community especially after the disaster at Crécy, and all of them were related by marriage to some extent. Geoffroi of Lirey's family, in particular, is quite well researched, and there is no place in it for Geoffroi the Templar.

[@ReasontoDoubt]

@hughfarey3734 Hey Hugh, we were hoping you might be willing to come on the channel and talk about your Shroud work, maybe discuss some of the things that have been brought up in the comments of these videos? If you're interested shoot us an email ([e-mail])

[@richardstanleyjr1455]

Hugh, Thanks for the comments. Just so you know, I have spent the time to read your papers and am appreciative of your input on the Shroud. I originally came to know of you from Andrea Nicolotti’s mention of you in his book. He rightly noted that skeptics are rare in this field since it is those who believe in the Shroud who are most likely to expend the energy to study it. Because I’m trying to understand the truth of the Shroud (authentic or not), I sought out your writings as a counterpoint. I didn’t intend to get into the weeds about Ian Wilson’s historical hypothesis, and I have no doubt that you can get into the weeds deeper than I can. But let me ask you about your view of a few details about this hypothesis. Why do you think the Image of Edessa / Mandylion was portrayed in landscape orientation instead of in a portrait orientation? It seems rather unusual that an image of a face alone would be portrayed in landscape. What do you think the word “tetradiplon” (doubled in four) was meant to convey about the Image of Edessa / Mandylion? What do you make of John Skylitzes’ illustration of the Mandylion arriving in Constantinople in 944 (see Mark Antonacci, Test the Shroud, page 198 (2015))? The illustration appears to show the Image of Edessa / Mandylion with a face on it and a long cloth that might be part of the Image of Edessa / Mandylion or might be a separate cloth closely associated with it. Is it correct to say that the Byzantines did not commonly display their relics publicly like the de Charnys and Savoys did in France and Italy? It is suggested that the Byzantines treated their relics with more reverence, and thus, public information about the relics was rare.

[@hughfarey3734]

@@richardstanleyjr1455 Hi Richard, and thanks for those kind words. I think the Image of Edessa is too often taken out of context, especially in Shroud circles, and that in the 10th century it was rather more of a political symbol than a theological one. 'Capturing' it from the Moslems signified that the otherwise unsatisfactory military campaign in Asia Minor and towards Mesopotamia was at least in part a success, and to some extent justified the usurpation of the Byzantine throne by Romanos Lekapenos. Naturally it was received in triumph and paraded around the streets with appropriate ceremony, but with the fall of the Lekapenos family a few years later it was reduced to occasional mentions of a "towel" and buried in the vaults, ranking about 14th among the relics of Christ's life. At the same time it, and at least two or three other images of Christ, get hopelessly confused as to what they were, what they looked like, where they came from and what happened to them. The Image of Edessa is often associated with a "tile," with a similar image on; other sources say that the Image duplicated itself onto a different cloth, and then we have the Veronicas (several), the Image of God Incarnate, the Image of Camuliana and possibly even the Image of Manoppello, some of which were probably copies of, or even the same object as, some of the others. Early images of the Image of Edessa seem to vary between landscape and portrait, and some are more or less square, so it's not clear what it really looked like. The earliest picture may be an icon now in St Catherine's monastery in Sinai, which shows a cloth held lengthwise by Abgar, and the head of Jesus twisted round to the front for clarity. The Madrid Skylitzes shows a portrait. In many paintings, the picture of the Image occupies a long thin horizontal space, and for purely artistic reasons is made to look like a long thin cloth, with the image of Christ itself in the middle, giving a landscape format. From the 12th century onwards it is nearly always shown in portrait orientation. Images of the Veronica are subject to the same variation, so I don't think there is much unusual about it. Talking of the Madrid Skylitzes, I'm afraid I don't think the big red cloth held by the man presenting the Image is any part of it. Not only is the Image clearly distinguished by colour and fringe from the cloth, but there are several other illustrations in the manuscript showing precious things being held in larger pieces of cloth. Tetradiplon continues to elude easy explanation. Two aspects of it are rarely mentioned, firstly, that it refers to the cloth given to Jesus, i.e. before he wiped his face on it, not folded up afterwards, and secondly that it is a noun, not an adjective. Jesus is not given a cloth folded in four, he is given a "folded-in-four." To me, this suggests not the precise configuration of the cloth, but its quality. A thin linen sheet is not much of a towel, but several sheets, or a single sheet folded up, possibly sewn together in a quilted pattern, would be more absorbent of moisture. The nearest similar usage I can get to today is when I go to a timber yard to buy a piece of four-ply. The fact that I want wood is understood, and the dimensions are not implied, but the kind of wood is specified. I'm of the opinion that a four-ply was a kind of towel in 6th century Constantinople, better than a single linen cloth, but not as comfortable or absorbent as a six-ply (if there was such a thing!). The nearest Greek equivalent I can find is a diplax, which ought to be an adjective meaning two-fold, but is used as a noun to mean a thick mantle or cloak. Does that help at all? Best wishes, Hugh .

[@asherthedisaster4724]

in the pray codex: even granting it is showing the shroud of turnin with burn marks, why would they have burred someone who they believed to be god, (or at least a prophet of god) in a burnt shroud?

[@ReasontoDoubt]

Presumably the Shroud didn't begin burnt, but became burnt at some point during its history

[@TheArkman360]

@@ReasontoDoubt Why didn't God make it immune to fire? Hell that would fucking prove it to be authentic! If the Shroud was indestructible then that would be a major piece of evidence in it's favor!

[@hwwbroward8322]

We watch these podcasts when we're on the run or late at night. Now that we can sit back and consider everything presented.. it seems like there will never be 100% proof of one thing or the other . And even though a lot of the history is vague, .in theory it could be providence that this was only permitted to be discovered or recognized after the photo was taken. Pretty spectacular. So for those people that need a little science to have any kind of Faith at all.. I still would suggest that there is certainly a lot of evidence that supports that this is not just Jesus but that's something extremely out of the ordinary took place. Either there was some super genius. Resourceful traveled person that had some kind of strange motivation to produce this or it is the equivalent to the revelation of Jesus with doubting Thomas showing him some proof that he needed.. I am one that is more then convinced that this is not only Jesus but that it reveals a unknown energy force that created the image. Now what..

[@helenaconstantine]

8:00 An alternative is that both the shroud and the illumination both used common types of depicting Jesus' embalming. I have no idea what images of that scene in the 12th and 13th century look like, but that would be and easy explanation and surely the first thing to check.

[@onlyme972]

It's a 2d image, if the shroud had been wrapped around the face the image unwrapped should be wider, try it yourself also dead bodies don't bleed. If the body was cleaned then no blood stains

[@MrSeedi76]

True. Those are the two biggest problems. There could be blood on the back but not on the parts that covered the front.

[@ebmmbe2149]

I tried to take you seriously 😂 Wowwww You mentioned Cardi B😮 Explains the bow 🎀

[@ReasontoDoubt]

My familiarity with memes explains the bow tie? 😄😄

[@conkergemini6489]

There seems to be movements on the Shroud he could have been alive also.

[@magicalthinking5123]

I wonder if Lazarus whom Jesus raised had a 3D image on his shroud,too?

[@ReasontoDoubt]

I don't think Lazarus got to the "covered with a shroud" stage...plus Lazarus' body didn't disintegrate into extra special Jesus neutrons

[@MarkOrwollTravel]

A point to remember: a burial shroud was considered "unclean" throughout history. To have saved such a cerement from a "normal" person would have been unthinkable. If indeed this winding sheet is from the proper time period, why would anyone have saved it, unless it was from a special personage? Shameless plug: I have a thriller novel about the Shroud of Turin coming out in September 2023, "Cross Purposes," set during the period of WWII when the shroud went missing. The plot, and historical facts, jibe almost perfectly with everything you guys said in this video. Good luck to you, skeptics. I appreciate what you do. I'm a skeptic too! But every once in a while, even a skeptic has to believe...

[@ReasontoDoubt]

Believing claims that have sufficient evidence is part of what makes one a good skeptic

[@ObjectiveEthics]

This was well done. I have only watched part 3 so I cannot speak on your work for the other videos. I am impressed with how you presented the information in a fairly objective and reasonable manner. I'm even more impressed with how many ridiculous comments you actually took the time to respond to. You've shown to have far more patience than the Yahweh character in the Biblical narratives.

[@polarbear1713]

51:43 Have you heard about the people who believe Jesus's name is on the shroud? 😂 Full disclaimer - I watched this episode first so if its in a different episode, don't hold it against me.😢

[@ReasontoDoubt]

I actually haven't heard of that one, but I am not shocked to hear it lol

[@polarbear1713]

Yea, it's just wishful thinking.

[@robertbreish8182]

Great series and I’ve enjoyed each of the episodes. I’m kind of surprised you guys didn’t mention this but it’s widely known Jesus’ right arm was dislocated during the process of carrying the cross and crucifixion. I wanted to please Beardy and cite a scholarly article but a quick google search brings you up to speed on all of that. That could well account for the discrepancy in the two arms compared.

[@ReasontoDoubt]

I think "widely known" might be a bit of an overstatement, but it is a popular idea. Glad you've enjoyed the series though!

[@robertbreish8182]

@@ReasontoDoubt This may be the only time someone says this to you for quite some time but I truly mean everything I say with all my heart. I am going to pray for you both tonight. The man on the cloth you so diligently poured hours studying over is truly Jesus of Nazareth. I think deep down you know there is more to this cloth than all the hand waving away of the many facts you both have done. There is a reason it’s survived all this time. If you’re looking for proof of a miracle and proof Christianity is true this is as close as you’re going to get. I pray that some of this has reached “you”.

[@ReasontoDoubt]

Well, if you're correct then hopefully your prayers are answered. If I am wrong I really would like to know it, especially since being wrong in this instance opens up the possibility of never dying!

[@robertbreish8182]

@@ReasontoDoubt I think the shroud is outside of what our science will ever truly be able to explain and that’s exactly what you would expect with a miracle. I know you guys stated you were going into this with a bias but it seemed like you were taking the majority of the pieces of evidence and making them fit your logic. It’s inevitable the shroud will be dated again once a non-destructive method is approved. When that will be is anyone’s guess. If I can point you towards an interesting topic for your channel and potentially another quiver for proof of God look into Caleb Jackson and miracles. He’s been on quite a few channels and I would love to see you guys cover that topic. All the best man I mean it. Subbed and looking forward to more from you guys.

[@ReasontoDoubt]

Bob Rucker's hypothesis, which involves the Shroud having been bombarded with intense neutron radiation with supernatural origins, would be able to be tested non-destructively. I haven't run the numbers but I wouldn't be surprised if you could falsify it with a Geiger counter you buy off of Amazon. We did our best to try to evaluate the evidence objectively...I can't ever rule out that I'm coming to the conclusions I am due to bias. All I can do is be aware of my biases and try my best to compensate. Hopefully, if I try often enough, I'll get it right eventually.

[@JamesToupin]

How the image was made isn't actually that much of a mystery: dry brushing. It is a technique where you either wipe the paint off the brush before painting to remove the liquid, or use a dry pigment to brush onto the surface.

[@ReasontoDoubt]

I am extremely skeptical that any person would make good on such an offer. They'd have precisely one million reasons not to.

[@Darriebp]

If you matching the shroud to Jesus maybe no but what about if it was someone else how would it stand up if that possibility . Someone thats been i battle ?

[@ReasontoDoubt]

Given the apparent wounds on the wrists, forehead, and back, which seem suggestive of the Gospel story I think it's reasonable to conclude that the image is intended to be Jesus.

[@GuitarDog_atx]

There's a decent number of apologists replying to this video. Clearly they are desperate for this to be some supernatural blanket. It's because they got nothing else.

[@michaelmcsweeny]

If it was a fake, why would the artist not create accurate proportions?

[@kneelingcatholic]

J&J, I am a Shroud skeptic as well, BUT I don't think you all did the Pray codex justice. Mainly because you manage to debunk it so quickly on the basis of your own expertise. No offense, but I don't think de Wesselow is any kind of Christian fundamentalist. He is a subject matter expert on medieval art and he says it is impossible to place the Shroud image style within a medieval context. (he says) No one painted or sculpted in that style. I was not aware that de Wesselow treats the Pray codex. But if he thinks it is a testimony to the Shroud's existence in the 1190s, then I am inclined to believe him on the basis of his expertise in art history. NTL, I must salute you for your diligence on this topic and your deep, deep dive.

[@ReasontoDoubt]

We don't have any expertise to speak of when it comes to medieval art. Expert opinion appears to be divided on the topic of the Codex, and we don't find the arguments for it being based on the SoT to be persuasive. I don't think we said de Wesselow was a fundamentalist (it's been a minute since we recorded this but I don't believe we did). I am happy to concede that the Shroud is unusual. I don't know whether an artist made or not, or how. I'm glad you found our work useful, though

[@kneelingcatholic]

@@ReasontoDoubt, SORRY! I was not correcting you. no, you never said de wesselow was a fundamentalist.... I mentioned that because I wanted to bolster the perceived objectivity of his conclusion that the Shroud does not fit in with any medieval schools of art.

[@ReasontoDoubt]

@kneelingcatholic Oh, gotcha. I don't think he's like a fundamentalist or a nut or anything. I read some of his book but haven't had the time to go through it in detail; maybe there's more in there that would be persuasive.

[@kneelingcatholic]

@@ReasontoDoubt, Good idea! Then you all can do a presentation - with your characteristic thoroughness - and THEN I won't have to buy it! ( all I know is from his 15 minute Ted talk😊)

[@PrincessMadeira]

I really enjoy this, I got interested in the topic after a client decided to harangue me about the shroud (I work in the adult industry, and openly advertise as a theistic Satanist which I am). I believe the shroud is inauthentic, but my client was rather amusingly startled by my saying that "Proving the resurrection of Jesus is meaningless to me, being powerful doesn't make it *right* for you to be powerful". In any case, I think you guys do great work. Personally, as a work of art, I love the shroud, I think it's really cool that there's this 14th century artifact that looks like it could be a piece of contemporary art. It's cool, it's avant-garde. It feels artistically very fresh, and that is extremely cool.

[@ReasontoDoubt]

I love "being powerful doesn't make it right for you to be powerful". I'm going to borrow that phrasing the next time someone insists that I should grovel before a being because they happen to have immense power.

[@PrincessMadeira]

@@ReasontoDoubt Right? Christian's are always saying "without god might makes right" but then they insist that it must be right to bow to the "all-mighty" because he's all-mighty, and to me that is morally hideous. Democracy and accountability in terms of authority are things I hold as profoundly important moral values. The idea of a being, no matter how "benevolent" their actions, making decisions on our behalf without our having any recourse is inherently immoral to me. There is no such thing as a good king, because he *could* be bad if he so chose. Thus even if the Christian god is literally real and as powerful as Christian's believe, I could not in good conscience accept him, and the idea of eternal bliss with such a being is horrific to me.

[@ReasontoDoubt]

@PrincessMadeira I'm an atheist, but I'm of the opinion that *if* God exists and *if* they are as benevolent as Christians say they are, then not only can there be no hell (torture forever seems pretty incompatible with being good) but also this being has to respect people's choices. Any being who predicated their allowing you to exist on whether or not you loved them doesn't seem very cool.

[@ziploc2000]

I'd love to see a reality TV show where 5 of the world's top artists try to recreate the Turin Shroud. While to me it's an obvious fake that we can lump in with the Loch Ness Monster, Bigfoot and the Tooth Fairy, it would be interesting to see what they could do.

[@shaypenton8854]

*with 13th century tech

[@alancook4407]

As I have always known the shroud is not genuine reason the spear wound is not were we think it was

[@1913gg]

OK, so in conclusion, the Shroud is not authentic but you dont know how the image was formed!!!?? Therefore, I learned nothing from you. You picked and choose your arguments based on some scientific articles. You can do this ONLY if you use a kind of exhaustive software which will include ALL the books, articles (peer reviewed or not) and speeches - published/recorded all over the world, in all languages - regarding the Shroud and the Sudarium of Oviedo. For me, until you do this with honesty, these 3 episodes are just another abuse, just like the C-14 announcement in 1988. Unscientific. Are we here to get informed or what?

[@ReasontoDoubt]

Correct. It is not authentic, but I don't know how it was formed. I appreciate you don't like that conclusion, but that's the only honest one available to me. I don't see why one has to read every syllable written on a topic by any random weirdo to come to a conclusion. All of my conclusions are lightly held; should I learn new information that indicates I'm wrong, I'll change my mind and let all you lovely people know. Till then, it isn't first century, so it isn't authentic.

[@heatherthomas2968]

Thank y'all so much for making this set of videos! I'm currently debating a theist online (in Facebook of all places. Ugh.🙄) and he is going in heavy with this shroud. So when I started researching the shroud, I was like, "Holy 🤬there's a lot of info on this topic!" I was completely overwhelmed. But y'all laid out all the evidence and explained it very clearly. So again, thank y'all so much! 😊

[@ReasontoDoubt]

I don't blame you, there is SO MUCH out there. It's insane. Glad we could help!

[@Madmen604]

There are discussions of the shroud going further back, circa 900 and earlier, as a folded cloth that displayed the face, not the body. It was pretty faint. They couldn't see what we can see in the negative image from photographs. For that period it was kind of 'meh'. The Church didn't even endorse it as real. Remember something, there were no Christians at the crucifixtion. The man's hands were not placed over his pubis for Christian modesty. There were pagan Romans and Jews. Also, everyone agrees it is not painted ok. It was made by some kind of print process involving heat and chemistry. No credible researcher will dispute that. The linen pattern was not drawn on the cloth guys.It was drawn on pictures to represent the cloth. It is a genuine 1st linen shroud woven in the style of that region for purpose of ritual burial. That is a fact based on textile historians. The 'Sindon' was made exclusively in the middle east Syria region I think. The arms of crucified men were often dislocated for obvious reasons. Plus his neck and shoulder muscles were damaged carrying the cross beam so one shoulder is drooped lower than the other. You need to read more because you are just misinforming viewers. Look for art historians. Look yourself for the primary source documents if you can't find articles.

[@ReasontoDoubt]

You're making a lot of assumptions here; we don't agree that those assumptions are warranted.

[@Madmen604]

@@ReasontoDoubt well, non scientists are entitled to their theories too. Even McCrone's findings are contradicted by at least one team of scientists who say the blood stains are human blood and provide details. So it seems both findings are true. What logical explainations could there be for that? Also my assumptions are from some credible articles, not just making it up. I'm still skeptical about it. I can see that you have done an excellent literature review. You guys should write up a simplified comparison of the data in an article, esp for lay readers..

[@ReasontoDoubt]

@@Madmen604 We elected to break them down over the course of three KZbin videos 😄

[@Devilboy689yoblived]

Have seen all three episodes. Good work. But to be fair, you didn't debunk anything, which makes the title a little clickbate in my opinion.

[@ReasontoDoubt]

If the Shroud is 1st century, it isn't the authentic burial Shroud of Jesus. We think the evidence points to that. But unfortunately "There is a lot of evidence that seems to point in this direction, and given the low prior probability of miracle claims it is insufficient to justify belief in a miracle in this instance" won't fit on a thumbnail

[@red-eyedmagister1595]

I think the shroud is probably fake, but you guys are not really serious, and you haven't convinced me of much

[@ReasontoDoubt]

Oh no

[@robertrucker5084]

[Continued] Claim #2. The most famous and popular argument against the accuracy of the carbon date is the Hungarian Pray codex. As I discussed above, the main argument against the 1260-1390 AD date obtained from the carbon dating of the Shroud is the proper statistical analysis (Ref. 2 to 5) of the carbon dates. Also, the Hungarian Pray codex or manuscript is not the only date indicator that is contrary to the results of the carbon dating. Ref. 7 lists 15 date indicators for the Shroud from the most recent (carbon dating) back to the oldest. These are summarized below. 1. Carbon dating of the corner of the Shroud indicated 1260-1390 AD for the Shroud. 2. Coins left micro-particles of gold on the Shroud, indicates a date probably before 1204. 3. The Hungarian Pray codex indicates a date for the Shroud prior to 1195 AD. 4. The Shroud is made of hand-spun thread, indicates a date in the 12th century or before. 5. Size of the Shroud (8 by 2 cubits) indicates it was made when the cubit was used. 6. Ancient coins show the face from the Shroud starting about 692 A.D. 7. The Sudarium of Oviedo is Jesus’ face cloth, so the Shroud dates prior to 570 A.D. 8. Ancient paintings of the face on the Shroud indicate a date prior to about 550 AD. 9. Crucifixion abolished in the Roman Empire in 337 AD  Shroud prior to this date. 10. Traditions indicate Jesus’ shroud was taken to Edessa, Turkey, in 1st or 2nd centuries. 11. Stitch connecting side piece to main Shroud is from 1st century  Shroud is 1st century. 12. Jesus’ crucifixion dates to 30 or 33 AD, so his burial cloth would also be 30-33 AD. 13. Possibility of a Roman lepton (29 to 32 AD) over one eye. This is not confirmed. 14. Spectroscopy and tensile strength of Shroud threads  33 B.C.  250 years 15. Radiation damage to Shroud fibers similar to Dead Sea Scrolls  250 B.C. to 70 AD. It should be emphasized that even if someone could legitimately disprove the date indicators #2 through #15 above, it would not prove that the carbon dating was correct because the credibility of the carbon date (1260 to 1390) should be rejected based on the statistical analysis of their measurement data as discussed above. Ref. 7 Robert A. Rucker, “Date of the Shroud of Turin”, Nov. 11, 2020, paper #29 on the research page of my website Shroud Research Network

[@michaeljames4509]

🙄

[@hwwbroward8322]

Exactly, the textile expert finding cannot say whether it was from that time for Century or the 1300s.. but it is in fact a unique weave which would have been expensive. I believe the discussion honestly about the weave is a wash only because you're citing somebody that's got some expertise who writes articles for a magazine.. so nothing to hang your hat on there. So in my opinion this does not make her break because it's an expensive cloth and nobody knows if it's from the 1300's or the first century.. even if it was handwoven I'm sure there could be some consistent errors. We would need some other opinions to backup with that magazine.

[@ReasontoDoubt]

Right; like we said, we wouldn't put much stock in a textile magazine, but we were scraping the barrel when it came to peer reviewed sources there. So far as I can tell it's a non-factor in being authentic or inauthentic.

[@hwwbroward8322]

@@Madmen604 I believe the pope is not unconvinced.. the position of the church is not to make a proclamation about these types of things. I don't believe it would be this late if they thought it was a forgery. There may never be one hundred percent proof but if you weigh all the evidence.. then statistically... the odds of it being a forgery are extremely low. If you check out all the evidence it is mind-blowing. Perhaps you have.

[@Madmen604]

@@hwwbroward8322 Am just getting hooked into the literature and debates. My instinct is that it is a forged artifact obtained from antiquities dealer/s in the region during the crusades. Then I look at the photographs. The face esp evokes strong emotion in the viewer. The apparent rigor around the mouth , I mean it sends chills. Never have I seen a more realistic 'painting' if that's what it is.

[@hwwbroward8322]

@@Madmen604 it would be extremely difficult to forge something like this.. there are definitely pollens from that part of Israel found on the Shroud and the flagrum whip " dumbbell shards" from the Roman era in which they bear with this type of whip.. perfectly match the numerous wounds throughout the body and blood serum along with the wounds and then of course the wound of Destiny under the rib.. the crown of thorns perfectly and circles the head with pollens from Israel in high concentration

[@Madmen604]

@@hwwbroward8322 are the Israeli pollens found around the crown. I read a medical forensic analysis that was more powerful to read than watching the movie. I was utterly in tears , just so moving. I lost the link though.

[@shriggs55]

I wish the hair on my balding head would grow as fast as Jordan's beard :)

[@ReasontoDoubt]

Jared is the one with the beard, and it does indeed grow insanely fast. He was clean shaven when we started prep for this series 😆

[@elkeism]

shoulder dislocation accounts for the elongated arms: honestly very intelligent people such as yourselves can be very myopic.

[@hughfarey3734]

Hi elitism. You make four statements in your last four comments, none of which you justify, so I guessing that you don't really know whether they can be justified or not. Let me enlighten you. 1) The sample used for dating was not a patch, and it was part of the original cloth. There is insufficient evidence to suggest otherwise. 2) The lack of thumbs is not consistent with any known nerve damage, and particularly median nerve damage. This was postulated by Pierre Barbet in the 1930s, but discounted by Fred Zugibe and successive pathologists since, at the end of the 20th century. 3) Criminologists may use pollen to locate incidents or artefacts, but no diagnostic pollen has been reliably identified on the Shroud. Max Frei's much publicised work has been discounted by at least three palynologists and Israel's most famous botanist since it was published in the 1980s. 4) There are several ways of accounting for the long arms, of which shoulder dislocation is one of the weakest. Myopia characterises short-sightedness, such as the views of one who does not delve in any depth into a subject, relying on a video or two for their information, and not investigating the research-work on which it is based. On the basis purely of your comments and my replies, would you care to rethink your description?

[@elkeism]

@@hughfarey3734 Good response Huge Fairy (I almost went with Fartey)! I've been challenged by a denier (therefore credible) that the weave patterns have characteristics implicating differences regarding where and when the cloths were made, but in my view (myopic?) none of those details matter if we can't explain, with all our advances, how the image was made. If Dr. Luigi Garlaschelli comes to mind I've got a surprise for you- Oh myopic one!

[@ReasontoDoubt]

"We don't know how it was made, therefore we DO know how it was made and it was God" I will never, ever cease to be amazed that this argument continues to be so popular.

[@elkeism]

@@ReasontoDoubt assuming that;'s not exactly what you're doing, you need to explain how a 3d image is made without a medium: you suggest an expert can explain it by draping the cloth over a statue and then XYZ- THEN lay it flat where the image is then DISTORTED- FTW a very sloppy Red hearing-straw man? What exactly??

[@ReasontoDoubt]

@@elkeism I did not suggest that the image can be "explained" by draping a cloth over a statue. I said that the fact that the image contains "3d information" (meaning that you can use the intensity of color to extrapolate a 3d image from the 2d Shroud) seems to be more easily explained if there was a 3d object involved in some way with its formation. I am surprised you object to this, since you think there WAS a 3d object involved: The corpse of Jesus. I do not know how many times I need to repeat this, but evidently the answer is always "at least once more": I do not know how the image was made. In fact, take this as a general rule: If you read what I say and think I have said that the image was made via X, then you should assume you have misread what I've said and either try again or ask clarifying questions.

[@red-eyedmagister1595]

I have not seen the 2 previous episodes, so I don't know if you touched on this: but we must consider that the image was 'made' either in the 14th century or the 1st century (more likely the 14th), but either way, it was certainly produced well before photography was ever dreamed of. therefore, an artist could not easily anticipate that what appear to be some faint scorch marks- the positive image - and what the artist produced- would reveal such a dramatic negative image. it seems unlikely that the artist could in effect 'predict' what the negative image would be. also, I am not aware that there is any other image of Jesus that show wounds in the wrist area rather than on the palms. a pretty unique distinction that does seem to set the shroud apart from many other images of Jesus, because i believe it has been firmly established that nails in the palms could not support the body of a grown man.

[@ReasontoDoubt]

While people very often characterize this as a "photographic negative" and imply that the technology of photography would be necessary to possess before creating a negative image, I'm not convinced of that. At its core, all it is is an image where the parts that would be closer to the viewer are darker. That doesn't require a camera, and it doesn't require that the artist intended for people to be able to invert colors with photography later. Hugh Farey, Shroud skeptic extraordinaire, touched on the wrist area wounds in our conversation with him: kzbin.info/www/bejne/lZSXZKKMep6naLc

[@daniellenm395]

Please look up Dr. Wayne Phillips. He does presentations on the shroud. He is an immunologist specializing in allergies. He confirms the pollen thing. But he also goes through most of these points you mentioned. If anyone could convince a sceptic, it would be him.

[@ReasontoDoubt]

Funny you should mention him! Our first Shroud video ever was reacting to one of Philips' presentations. We didn't do a debunking at that time, but we promised to do it in the future (the future is now). Regarding the pollen, though, a botanist would be the appropriate expert to critique the pollen and it seems the botanists aren't convinced.

[@nightspore4850]

Mixed bag. You bring up some good points in this episode and the previous one and I really appreciate that you actually looked up a lot of the relevant points. However. Some of this was entirely too glib and dismissive. Your take concerning the L-shpaed holes on the Pray Codex is just perfunctory and tendentious. That is an extremely unusual feature and I think otherwise unaccountable than as having derived from the Shroud. You gloss over a lot of other evidence and do not consider the remarkable congruences between the pattern of bloodstains on the Shroud and the Sudarium of Oviedo. Major omission. In your previous program, you dismissed radiation on some interesting scientific grounds, but vapor diffusion of some sort could not have produced an image that sharp, which leaves an artistic forgery. And yet you yourselves point out how tenuous any such explanation is. It is tenuous to the point of impossibility. A medieval artist is going to forge scourge-marks down to the detail of dumbell-shaped wounds from a Roman flagrum?? Not possible. He is going to have blood trickling down at two angles on the forearms because he knew the victim of crucifixion had to keep changing position? And your final conclusion does not pass the laugh test, that, well, even if it was first-century, lots of other people were crucified. Really? With spear wounds in their sides? Crowned with thorns? Making an image modern science cannot decipher? Are you kidding? And by the way, the right arm seems longer because it was injured and possibly dislocated carrying the cross-beam, which is evident on the rear image. Oh yeah, and precisely what natural explanation is there for the qualitative similarity between the front and back images, such as vapor diffusion, when the full weight of the body was pressed against the back? Yet the same highly superficial image is on both? And why is the face not laterally distorted if the cloth was draped against the face? Here is what you should consider: combined probabilities. Every sceptical take on the Shroud considers the evidence piece by piece in isolation. That is the same error as saying that the probability of tossing heads ten time in a row is one in two because the probability of each independent toss is one in two. The probabilities combine to more than one in a thousand. Take all the Shroud evidence together and what you get is near certainty. That may not accord with your presuppositions or prejudices, but so much the worse for them. Back to the drawing-board guys.

[@ReasontoDoubt]

It is literally impossible for us to cover every possible piece of evidence for the Shroud of Turin in a single video, or even a series of three. Had we cut out the Codex in order to cover the Sudarium then people (perhaps even yourself) would accuse us of *that* "major omission". It is an unwinnable position. Speaking of the Codex, I think one has to ignore the thing that is extremely obviously a piece of cloth to conclude the rectangular object on the Codex is the Shroud, circles notwithstanding. I'm much more inclined to think an artist who loves circles drew some circles than to just cover my eyes and pretend there isn't a burial cloth sitting on top of what is supposed to be a burial cloth. That said, I don't know how the image was made. Nobody knows how it was made. But "We don't know" does not mean "Therefore I DO know and it was God". That's just a non-sequitur. I'm glad you derived some value out of the videos nonetheless, though. Maybe we'll revisit the Shroud again in the future.

[@nightspore4850]

@@ReasontoDoubt Not trying to start a conversation, but your reasoning about the separate piece of what is obviously cloth in the Pray Codex is flawed. The gospel account mentions two cloths in the tomb, one of them smaller and corresponding to what we now call the Sudarium. That is what is being depicted: it is relatively straightforward iconography based on the biblical text. Just one question and I promise no more after that. When you, as two sceptics who unlike most are at least willing to go into some of the evidence and deal with it, look at the combined totality of that evidence, and the complete inability of twentieth, and now twenty-first, century science to explain it, and when you see, as I think you do, how impossibly lame the notion of it being a medieval forgery is, I don’t care what it does to your religious convictions or lack thereof, don’t you find it just a bit purely intellectually overwhelming? Don’t you get the sense, as it were, that the Shroud is laughing at you?

[@ReasontoDoubt]

There were certainly some things that were surprising and things I changed my mind on. But if I'm being completely honest with you after spending at least a couple dozen hours digging into the Shroud research I came away wondering why the Shroud is held in such high regard by so many theists. The evidence in favor of it is mostly flimsy, and the best arguments are little more than God of the Gaps style arguments ("We can't make it in the 21st century, therefore it must have been a miracle"). I just don't see why it's so compelling to so many people.

[@hughfarey3734]

@@nightspore4850 Hi Nightspore, good to hear from you. You make some worthwhile comments, but I'm afraid you may be as guilty as you think Jordan and Jared are when it comes to "the combined totality" of evidence. For example, I don't know how familiar you are with 'Three Marys' iconography. The theme was extremely common in Christian art for hundreds of years, and thousands of examples exist, in manuscripts, mosaics, paintings, carvings and sculptures of all kinds. As with most Christian art of the Middle Ages, each depiction was moulded around a few essential elements, varied slightly to reflect the culture of the particular times and places where they were made. No one with any familiarity with this iconography could doubt that the rectilinear elements of the Pray Codex illustration are the sarcophagus and its lid, and not burial cloths. You are correct that the iconography is "relatively straightforward;" it is common to thousands of its genre - that's what iconography is. In common with many authenticists, you set some store by "the detail of dumbell-shaped wounds from a Roman flagrum." Here again, I fear, you do not seem to have looked at "the combined totality" of the evidence. The flagrum is described in several Latin texts, and depicted in several Roman images, and in no case is the idea that a three-thonged whip culminating in lead balls even suggested, let alone demonstrated. I'm sure you are familiar with the reconstructions of the "Shroud flagrum" found in abundance on the internet, but these are back-formations from the marks on the Shroud itself, and owe nothing at all to archaeology. I'm afraid the jump from "the Roman sources do not deny lead-tipped thongs" to "the Shroud accurately depicts Roman scourge wounds" (not, I agree, your words) is not very impartial. By the end of your comment you seem to have become very focussed on a single explanation for the image, and have lost sight of any "combined totality." You ask, "What natural explanation is there for the qualitative similarity between the front and back images [...] when the full weight of the body was pressed against the back?" Well, if there was a body, then your question has meaning, but supposing there wasn't? The similarity of depiction between the ventral and dorsal images is a point in favour of an artistic creation, whether by painting, pouncing or printing or some other medium, in which an artist would be very likely to do both sides the same way. "And why is the face not laterally distorted if the cloth was draped against the face?" Why indeed. The obvious rational answer is not, I'm afraid, "because it's miraculous," but "because the cloth was never draped against a face." Once again, I think we medievalists are frequently way ahead when it comes to a consideration of all possibilities Best wishes, Hugh

[@nightspore4850]

@@hughfarey3734 Thank you for such a detailed response. Since you yourself have obviously done a great deal of work on this subject, do you have or are you associated with a KZbin channel or website? Your observations are intriguing to say the least but still do not strike me as dispositive. Nevertheless I have been searching, rather in vain I’m afraid, for detailed criticism. This channel initially aroused some vague hopes, but the programs and responses to my own comments proved fairly perfunctory, which is disappointing but pretty typical. I hesitate to get into any sort of discussion with you on this channel, but do have a few questions I would like to put in some more appropriate venue. For instance, I am only very marginally aware, simply from having seen a few examples, of “Three Marys” iconography, but to say, “…no one…could doubt…” the rectilinear image as a sarcophagus lid in my opinion goes way too far. I will have to examine other icons more carefully, but my best conjecture is that what I will find is no anomalous patterning on the lids. They may be decorated in some way or simply depict plain carved stone, and the ones I know of are adjacent to an empty sarcophagus. The distinctive patterning on the Pray Codex rectangle, as well as its dimensions, combined with the L-shaped pattern of circles (holes), seems pretty straightforwardly derived from the Shroud to me, and I stay with my initial contention that the cloth on it represents what we now call the Sudarium, reflecting the gospel account. You may disagree but I do not think you can deny I have a substantive rationale. Naturally, your contentions about the lack of historical evidence for the specific configuration of the flagrum intrigue me. I did indeed accept that there was independent evidence, and will certainly have to look into this further. On the other hand it seems incongruous to me that a forger would have taken the time or trouble to invent such details. Would they have made the least difference to his intended audience, even assuming they were noticed? It really makes no sense, and would have involved countless hours of work to produce a negligible effect. As for the similarity of frontal and rear images, yes, I agree they would argue for artistic production of the image, if any were even conceivable that could have produced its physical characteristics. However, none are even remotely conceivable, and here I think it is you who turn disingenuous. People have tried for decades to provide an explanation along those lines with absolutely no success. Even a lot of sceptics have abandoned that option. When no explanation is available it is perfectly proper to suspend judgment, but that is not what sceptics generally do. They want, however obliquely, and some are more blatant about it, to conclude that the Shroud is not, or cannot be, genuine, because they have an agenda and preconceptions they must defend at all cost. You yourself do not combine all the evidence, the nature of the image, the (current and ongoing) inability to account for it, the Pray Codex, the bloodstains and their obvious congruence with those on the Sudarium, the pollen and limestone analysis, the anatomical and medical evidence, the historical congruences, etc., into a coherent whole requiring to be addressed as such as by combination of (im)probabilities. Therefore, I continue to conclude that the Shroud is authentic, that the evidence is, taken as a whole, overwhelming beyond reasonable doubt. As for jumping to a supernatural explanation, if no natural explanation aligns, what exactly is left? I cannot even conceive of the natural circumstances which could have concatenated to produce that image, nor I believe can you. We may both suspend ultimate judgment, but our provisional judgments will necessarily reflect premises having nothing to do with evidence.

[@Bass_Nomad.]

you can debunk all you want, some people are not going to accept the truth no matter how much you prove things. some people like to believe and other people like to know the truth. so be it.

[@les2997]

To fake the image medieval artists would have to be able to change the structure of individual microfibers. The technology and knowledge required to manipulate individual microfibers on a microscopic scale, as seen in the Shroud of Turin, significantly surpasses the capabilities of medieval artists and their tools. Here's why: 1. Microscopic Resolution: Examining and manipulating individual microfibers necessitates microscopes, which weren't invented until the late 16th century, long after the Shroud's purported creation. Medieval artists relied on their naked eyes and rudimentary magnifying glasses, limiting their resolution to much larger scales. 2. Fiber Manipulation Techniques: The Shroud exhibits intricate, detailed bloodstain imagery formed by the physical displacement of microscopic fibers. Medieval artists lacked the tools and techniques to achieve such precise fiber manipulation on such a microscopic level. Their methods of creating imagery involved pigments, dyes, and weaving techniques, all operating at a much larger scale. Chemical Knowledge: The Shroud's bloodstain imagery exhibits unique chemical properties, including the presence of bilirubin, a protein only found in human blood. Medieval artists lacked the chemical knowledge and technology to replicate these precise biochemical signatures on the fibers. Therefore, based on the limitations of medieval technology and knowledge, it's highly improbable that medieval artists could have created the Shroud of Turin's microscopic features. The Shroud's microscopic characteristics continue to fuel debate and scientific investigation regarding its authenticity.

[@ReasontoDoubt]

I do not know that one needs to individually manipulate or even perceive the microfibers in order to do things which don't affect every microfiber. I'm not sure how you could come to that conclusion without knowing how the Shroud image was formed, which absolutely nobody knows. Also, there is a material that would realistically mimic the properties of human blood which was readily available in the Middle Ages: Human blood.

[@les2997]

@@ReasontoDoubt The image on the Shroud of Turin appears to be limited to the outermost one to three layers of linen microfibers. Put simply, it's an incredibly thin image that doesn't delve deep into the cloth itself. This superficial nature raises compelling questions about its origin. Imagine each micro-fiber as mere wisps, roughly one-tenth to one-fifth the thickness of a human hair. Manipulating such minuscule entities with precision would have been beyond the reach of medieval artists and their technology. It truly pushes the boundaries of what seems achievable with even the most sophisticated artistic techniques of the time.

[@ReasontoDoubt]

@les2997 Again, one doesn't have to have an understanding of microfibers to affect them. For example, one could darken a cloth by heating it, scorching only the very tops of the fibers, without having a clue how to manipulate individual fibers. I'm not saying that's how this image was made, merely that it doesn't follow that because the image is thin that it requires hyper advanced knowledge and microscopes

[@les2997]

@@ReasontoDoubt The idea that scorching could explain the image on the Shroud of Turin holds several significant weaknesses: Lack of Specificity: "Scorching" is too vague to be considered a scientific explanation. It doesn't specify the type of heat, its intensity, duration, or source. Without specifics, replicating the observed image and testing this hypothesis rigorously is impossible. Inconsistency with Evidence: The image on the shroud exhibits characteristics not consistent with simple scorching: Front-and-back image: The image appears on both sides of the fabric, difficult to achieve with scorching without damaging the entire cloth. Detailed anatomical features: The image shows detailed anatomical features like bloodstains and beard hair, unlikely to be preserved by straightforward scorching. Three-dimensional nature: Some researchers argue the image has a three-dimensional quality, unlike a flat burn mark. Alternative Explanations: Extensive scientific research has proposed alternative explanations for the Shroud of Turin image, each with more merit than simply "scorching": Scientific Rigor: Attributing the image to "scorching" lacks scientific rigor. It makes no falsifiable predictions, meaning there's no experiment that could definitively prove or disprove it. In conclusion, "scorching" fails to explain the Shroud of Turin image due to its vagueness, inconsistency with evidence, and lack of scientific merit. The quest for understanding the Shroud's origin demands rigorous scientific investigation and exploration of more plausible hypotheses.

[@ReasontoDoubt]

@les2997 I'd encourage you to actually read what I said, because I SPECIFICALLY said I was NOT suggesting scorching as a method to make the image. I was merely pointing it out as an example of something that would have microscopic impacts without requiring microscopic knowledge. Therefore, it does not follow that because an effect has microscopic impacts, it requires a microscope to utilize.

[@elkeism]

The only sample used for dating was medieval patchwork: not part of the original cloth

[@pellewredenborg9967]

This topic is covered in the first video in the series

[@elkeism]

@@pellewredenborg9967 still irrelevant since there's no medium for the image ie. pigment

[@pellewredenborg9967]

@@elkeism You are of course free to bring up topics you find irrelevant. I just mentioned it in case you missed the other episodes.

[@elkeism]

@@pellewredenborg9967 likewise

[@Im40ImAMan]

Interesting set of videos. It seems like you possibly had a fair amount of unconscious bias at points during the series. Hard to listen to arguments that are occasionally made with logical fallacies, seemingly to fight for the postion you want to be true. That said I do appreciate how you tried to be fair to both sides. Best of luck to your channel in 2023.

[@ReasontoDoubt]

Can you point out something specific that we said which was logically fallacious?

[@Im40ImAMan]

@Reason to Doubt I didn't compile a list, but I'll list two that are off the top of my head. Around 11:30 when discussing placement of Jesus' hands you beg the question that he needed to be covered and his hands needed to go somewhere so his hands just naturally had to go over his genitals as without citing any reasoning why it was impossible to have it another way. At 36:10 there's discussion on the bee pollen and you have a credentials and appeal to authority fallacy by asking if the gentleman was a botanist to dismiss his ideas then move into what some actual botanist think which wouldn't disprove the point in question. There were several others, but I'm not going to watch the videos again to list them all out as they were more sporadicvice constant.. I still feel like you did a decent job at trying to be charitable to both sides, but it is evident what side you want to be shown as a correct side.

[@ReasontoDoubt]

@Im40ImAMan We certainly try to be fair, but we're always looking to improve! Maybe we didn't explain our reasoning well enough regarding the hands. It was very uncommon for Jesus to show up naked in medieval (or heck, modern!) artwork completely nude. He is always covered in some way for reasons of modesty. Therefore, *if* there was an artist involved in making a piece of artwork and if that artist chose to depict Jesus naked, it seems implausible that such an artist would choose to have Jesus' genitals be fully visible. That would go against everything we know of medieval art. The only thing available to cover the genitals of a naked man would be the hands. So, if an artist is involved, the hands have to go over the junk. All of that is to say that "Jesus was naked" and "Jesus hands cover his genitals" are really the same point when it comes to artwork and should be counted together. For the pollen guy, it isn't a fallacious appeal to authority to cite relevant research by experts. Given the choice between a non-botanist opining on botany, and several botanists publishing about it in peer reviewed literature, one should go with the botanists unless there is a *very* good reason not to. It isn't fallacious to cite research. Thanks for taking the time to watch our content, though, and to push back on our points. Stay skeptical!

[@Im40ImAMan]

@@ReasontoDoubt It's fallacious to dismiss his findings out right because he's just a criminologist. When one takes a few minutes to look at it closer they'll find that two Israeli professors Avinoam Danin (botonist) and Dr. Uri Baruch (palynologist) looked at the samples and came to a finding. Then you claim a group of botanist refute this when the paper was done by one botanist as a possible explanation, not the explanation. Ultimately, my problem wasn't the citing of research, but the outright dismissal without any reason other than he's a criminologist and I don't know how he came up with his findings.

[@ReasontoDoubt]

@Im40ImAMan It wasn't simply the paper cited, but the body of botanical research the botanist Boi themselves referenced. I'm not a botanist. I'm not qualified to assess the work done regarding the pollen; all I can do is seek the work of experts. I had a botanist on the one hand, referencing the works of other botanists (which they indicated were well grounded and were not contradicted by any citing paper I could see), and the works of a layman coming to conclusions the botanists said were not reasonably possible with the available evidence. Given the choice between the two, it's reasonable to go with the botanist. That may not be the correct conclusion; the criminologist *could* be right. But it isn't fallacious to prefer the peer reviewed work of experts to the non-peer reviewed work of laymen. That's not what the appeal to authority fallacy is. The appeal to authority fallacy comes in when the authority cited is not actually an authority (say if I cited that botanist's opinion on quantum mechanics) or if it is concluded that a conclusion *must* be correct because an expert said so. That isn't what we did. In a future episode we may look at the pollen thing closer though. We only had so much time, even with 3 episodes.

[@alancook4407]

Not authentic spear wound not were Jesus was peirced lower down on the right side

[@beorbeorian150]

I know skeptics are not interested in the Bible as evidence. However the shroud does not match the shroud in the Bible. I think that is important. Maybe the 39th most important proof it is fake but still important.

[@elkeism]

The thumbs are constant with nerve damage FTW

[@hwwbroward8322]

For the people that stated his limbs were extra-long his arms that's not an uncommon condition have family members that have marfan syndromes . So I can say it really doesn't have an impact on The credibility because of the nature of the three-dimensional imprint there's all kinds of reasons that can make one arm look shorter. Which you seem to be saying.

[@ReasontoDoubt]

If the image had extra long limbs or even disproportionate limbs that wouldn't preclude authenticity, but it would be a point against it since those conditions are quite rare. For example, if he had a wingspan to height ratio of 1.1 that would put him in the 99th percentile of humans (assuming proportions were about the same then, which there seems to be no reason they wouldn't be). That would bely the description in the NT that Jesus was physically unremarkable as well. That would strengthen the case that the proportions were exaggerated by an artist since there seems to be a clear reason to do so (to get the arms to be positioned over the groin). But like I said, extra-long arms don't appear to be the case assuming Fanti is correct with his 3d reconstruction. The different length limbs may be correct, but I wouldn't lean too hard on my own very rough measurements. I'd feel much more confident if I could measure off a 3d reconstruction, but I didn't see anywhere that Fanti published schematics of his statue.

[@Nocturius_Fi-Core]

If Jesus has indeed extra-long arms, they would surely talks about it somewhere as he is suppose to be the son of god, so his apparency must have been special in some way.

[@Markodude]

Even if the shroud is really from Jesus’ time, it doesn’t mean it was him. It could have been someone else killed and given thorns on his head to look like Jesus. Even if it wasn’t though, it doesn’t demonstrate Jesus rose from the dead at all.

[@ReasontoDoubt]

That's technically true, though if it was from the 1st century, it seems less likely to have been forged since Christianity was a very small religion & Jesus wasn't particularly relevant to the vast majority of the population. But since it's very likely not first century it's a moot point 😁

[@Markodude]

@@ReasontoDoubt that’s true. I’m curious, would you say that if the shroud marches the sudarium of Oviedo that it strengthens the case for it or not?

[@ReasontoDoubt]

I think it depends on what you mean by "match", but in general I'd say it strengthens the case. Having two artifacts credited to the same person that match in some sort of unlikely way is more likely on a hypothesis of authenticity than otherwise. Whether it would be definitive would depend on the particulars. Considering the Sudarium radiocarbon dates to centuries before the Shroud, though...

[@Markodude]

@@ReasontoDoubt have you guys ever heard the claims that the face and the blood match on both artifacts? Do these arguments bring back any validity for both? Or would you say the radiocarbon dates are more valid proof that they are not connected?

[@ReasontoDoubt]

@markstrauss7178 I've heard the claim, but the blood "matching" is usually referring to the blood type. With the tests they conducted, a result of AB is identical to a null result from the blood being too degraded, so obviously we should assume degradation over a rare blood type. The matching face seems dubious to me but I admit I haven't looked at that closely. The radiocarbon dating is a serious hurdle though. That's not going to be easy to overcome. If it were some decades, maybe even a century or two then maybe, but the Shroud dates to the 13th or 14th, Sudarium to 7th.

[@BurningBushPedagogy]

To debunk something you guys need 10 hours of explanation just to say something is wrong or a lie.? why so hard. not that am against you guys, but the videos are too long. I can easily debunk the shrould with more believable facts in few words. First off trying to say something is wrong or right when you never tried to view it, is a little silly, you just trying to counter what the people who saying its true and find fault in their words. Its easy, if that is the Jesus the bible talks about, lets look at the appearance of the person in image and compare to the description in the bible of Jesus, as the bible descrbed Jesus at least. Use the bible not some BS science stuffs you cant prove or disprove. read REV 1 verse 14 Hair like wool, feet as burnt copper, yes human can have those traits, wool can look like hair and copper has a color which people do have, wooly hair, and brown dark skin. END OF STORY. The person in the shroud has hair like horse main and skin like pink. And that is someone else not the Jesus of the bible, though their cross, rings, keys, pins, and sorts of things in the shroud to surprise those who will see it. But this is not the Jesus of the bible. Unless you wanna tell me Jesus in revelation looks different from the ones with John Peter, James etc.

[@ReasontoDoubt]

The bullshit asymmetry principle guarantees these videos will remain long forever.

[@stonehengemaca]

The weirdest part of the whole Jesus story is that at the actual time, when Jesus was supposedly doing miracles and being the son of an actual God, nobody was bothered.

[@ReasontoDoubt]

Some people were bothered, but I do think that it is remarkable that nobody thought a parade of dead saints was worth mentioning or writing down. Guess Josephus had bigger fish to fry! 😄

[@stonehengemaca]

@@ReasontoDoubt But we only know those people were bothered by other people's accounts written years later..

[@ReasontoDoubt]

@stonehengemaca That's how we know just about everything from history. Pretty safe bet that the Romans didn't crucify people they liked though

[@stonehengemaca]

@@ReasontoDoubt Maybe from the dark ages. But since the written word was invented we know all about history from accounts at the time. Usually from the winner if it was conquest and that history is most likely exaggerated or false.

[@ReasontoDoubt]

@stonehengemaca I don't think that's accurate, at least that's not what I hear from historians. We sometimes have firsthand accounts (Gallic wars for example), but far more often we hear about things second or third hand, decades or even centuries removed. It's just the nature of the beast.

[@frederickanderson1860]

Waste of discussion they can't explain who is the person on the shroud and how the image was formed .

[@ReasontoDoubt]

"We don't know how this was done" != "God did it"

[@frederickanderson1860]

@@ReasontoDoubt reminds me jesus reply to his disciples,after doubting Thomas reaction, blessed are Those who cant see yet believe .

[@ReasontoDoubt]

@@frederickanderson1860 I prefer Galileo. "I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with senses, reason and intellect has intended us to forego their use"

[@frederickanderson1860]

@@ReasontoDoubt well big difference between the two dont you think.

[@jesserochon3103]

@@ReasontoDoubt While I do agree that we simply don't know how this insane image occurred, my personal feeling on the matter is that the current best explanation (until such a time as a better model or theory arrises) is that this image was created by an unbelievably intense but infinitesimally brief energy blast in the UP direction from a crucified male corpse. I just can't see this image (based on what we know of its properties) being crafted by human hands. One thing for sure... the shroud keeps me up at night.

[@ebmmbe2149]

So you two are scientists?

[@ReasontoDoubt]

Nope. I (Jordan) am a nuclear engineer, and Jared is a theologian

[@ReasontoDoubt]

I just said I'm a nuclear engineer. If I were a particle physicist I would have said I was a particle physicist.

[@logioso]

I did not agree with the dismissive tone of one of the final comments saying that if it was 1st Century still that is not proof it was Jesus' because many people were crucified at that time. Right but the chances of this person being Jesus would be considerable , as we know that although a lot of people were crucified the normal thing was for the crucified bodies to be left to rot in the cross, and also that kind of punishment ,the lashing, the crown of thorns etc (fitting the gospels description) must have been unique to Jesus.

[@ReasontoDoubt]

Like I (Jordan) said it would be evidence on favor of the Gospel tradition. I do not think it likely that Jesus was the only person the Romans beat up before they were crucified, though. The Romans were pretty brutal; that was kind of the point. I also agree that Jesus was real person who was crucified, so an image of Jesus as a crucified person, in and of itself, wouldn't prove anything that I don't already accept as true. But I'm pretty sure it isn't 1st century anyway so it's a moot point.

[@hughfarey3734]

@@ReasontoDoubt Hi Logioso, it is often claimed the Jesus is the only man who was crowned with thorns and/or pierced with a spear and/or scourged before crucifixion, but this is based on false logic. Having only one description of anybody who was crucified, we cannot say if that was typical or unique. Although few crucifixion victims claimed to be a king, many were leaders of bands of rebels, who could merit at least a helmet, as the "crown" is often supposed to resemble. Similarly, we cannot say that being stabbed with a spear or being flogged beforehand was unusual.

[@nahj1don706]

@@ReasontoDoubt there are no records of Romans piercing the sides of crucified victims nor making cap of thorns to go on their heads. The ancient records detail they were left for days on the cross till they died. If they wanted to give them a quick death they would break the knee cap of their victims. Here we have the gospel saying they mockingly made a cap of thorns from the Gundelia tournefortii plant as it's pollen was found heavily in the shroud's head and shoulder region.. this plant is only unique to Jerusalem and only comes around from march to April (Jesus died during passover according to the bible text...which would be Easter) bible said Jesus was pierced in his side ...and we have that evidence on the cloth.. we can be sceptical as much as we want.. the fact remains that cloth is proof of the resurrection as it took place.

[@hughfarey3734]

@@nahj1don706 Hi Nahji Don, I'm sorry I've only just seen your comment. KZbin does enjoy juggling them about, I find. I'm intrigued by your knowledge of ancient crucifixion practices. There is no evidence, for example, that Romans broke the kneecaps of crucifixion victims as a matter of course. Have you seen any evidence for it? And the gospels most specifically do not mention a "cap" of thorns. The word they use is "στέφανον" which most definitely refers to a circlet. Gundelia tournefortii, as I'm sure you know, is a kind of thistle and has unpleasantly spiky leaves, but not thorns as such. Its pollen was not found around around the head and shoulders - whatever gave you that idea? Nor is it unique to Jerusalem - whatever gave you that idea? So, well, no, I'm afraid the fact doesn't remain that the cloth is from the Middle East, or from the time of the Romans, let alone that it is proof of the Resurrection. There are lots of good reasons for believing in the Resurrection, but the Shroud, I'm afraid, is not one of them

[@zemorph42]

Do you believe that the Bible account of the burial cloths is accurate? Please read it again before responding. You'll see the problem then.

[@hwwbroward8322]

Do like the fact that u-pic-a-part the weak arguments. The history in my opinion is sketchy.. .. does seem like you are highlighting the weeker arguments.. all well and good. , because what we have left is the Undisputed 3-dimensional properties, a photo negative image, you guys did not mention anything about the crown of thorns at least unless I missed it and of course at the end when you said it could be anybody! I didn't hear every thing at the end but how many crucified people had a crown of thorns?? Again and that is you just saying theoretically if it were from that place and time.. you're in my opinion emphasizing the little things but even if nobody can explain it with radiation, , don't you think you're minimizing the fact that nobody's ever reproduced this?? I mean they've tried but they've really not come close.. so anybody with a little bit of imagination knowing just a little bit of science can accept image result from some type of light energy whether it be radiation or not. Because they've already determined it's not a painting.I mean people can dispute that all they want but the the credible people that have been the closest to the object have stated that pretty matter-of-factly. And they've also stated that it's three-dimensional and we have the pictures.. , To the people that don't want to believe in it I'm sure you've helped them out. Not to imply that at your intentional .. but everything is in the sub conscience imo. The people that don't want to believe in it zoom in on the weak evidence or lack of evidence. Then there are people that believe that it's legitimately Jesus but but even though we have this image beyond the imagination that anybody could concoct in my opinion in the way that it was supposedly concocted.. they're still they would say that they're still no out-of-the-ordinary cause. People that you could say want to believe that it is or have no problem believing that it is authentic just don't understand how one can just skip over the wounds that match dumbbell shape shards of the Roman flagrum .. regardless if those Roman flagrum continued up to the 10th or 11th century.. you could do a whole presentation on just the nature of the wounds.. anyway.. there will never be complete proof but in my opinion you can't really size this thing up without taking two steps back and just trying to imagine how in the world this happened.

[@ReasontoDoubt]

We tried to hit the things that were talked about the most by supporters. Things like the image properties and models for formation, the Pray Codex, and the radiocarbon dating. I absolutely, positively guarantee you that if we had cut out, say, the Pray Codex in order to focus on the things you want us to focus on, there would be someone else in the comments accusing us of being dishonest or nefarious in focusing on A instead of B. No matter what we chose to cover, someone would be telling us that the best evidence is just on the horizon.

[@hwwbroward8322]

@@ReasontoDoubt well it would be my hope that you would one day appreciate the subject at hand. Obviously you appreciate the controversy enough to put the program together and get to the bottom of some of the facts. Again I would just insert that perhaps subconsciously in my opinion you've ignored the elephant in the room... the t-shirt that one of you were wearing should say Jesus is Love. No laughing matter.

[@ReasontoDoubt]

@@hwwbroward8322 We didn't subconsciously ignore the best arguments. We always try to find what seem to be the best and/or most popular arguments in favor of anything we're examining. For example, you think that the Pray Codex is weak. I agree, but I know for a FACT supporters in general think it is extremely important simply because it has been brought up non-stop in the comments of video 1 & 2. We could vet our outlines with you before we post them, but all that would guarantee is someone ELSE would be convinced we're deliberately ignoring . If you want to believe that we're subconsciously avoiding strong evidence or whatever, I can never convince you otherwise. So I'm not going to keep trying.

[@hwwbroward8322]

@@ReasontoDoubt seems like we're both accusing that we are believing what we want to believe.. I'm all for breaking down fallacy ..I don't want to believe that you are trying to avoid the bigger arguments. I respect the fact that you addressed the subjects that there was the most data on.. if this is the shroud of Jesus and there is substantial evidence in my opinion that it is.. then no harm in breaking down exaggerated or misrepresented evidence.. but scientific analysis still allows for endless possibilities especially in this case.imo

[@Arcadius8]

Obviously someone who manufactered it was the forgotten genius medieval psychopath murderer. Case closed.

[@sammyvandenburg]

>cant explain the image on the shroud Discarded.

[@ReasontoDoubt]

*can't

[@robertrucker5084]

[Continued] Consideration of the above scenes in this motif should convince the objective observer that the item shown in the bottom image in the Pray codex is not a box (sarcophagus): 1) Most scenes in this motif show the box and/or lid with a significant thickness, whereas the bottom image in the Pray codex shows no thickness, consistent with it being the thickness of a piece of cloth. 2) Most scenes in this motif show the box with a front wall, a back wall, and one or two side walls, whereas the Pray codex shows what would have to be assumed to be the front wall of the box but does not show a back wall or side walls of a box. 3) Other scenes in this motif show the lid clearly not connected to the box, but the Pray codex shows the top piece at an angle that appears to be connected to the bottom piece on the left side of the image, consistent with this being one piece of cloth that is folded over. 4) Of the 16 scenes of this motif that were reviewed, no other scenes show a stair-step pattern on the box or on the lid, but the Pray codex shows a stair-step pattern on the left and right sides of the top piece. This stair-step pattern mimics the three-to-one Herringbone weave of the Shroud of Turin as shown in Figure 4 in Ref. 7, so this pattern identifies the top piece to be cloth with a herringbone weave, like the weave on the Shroud of Turin. 5) The bottom piece in the Pray codex that was misidentified as the front wall of a box (sarcophagus) is covered with a pattern of crosses that are filled in with an orange-red color. None of the boxes in other scenes of this motif have anything like this pattern of crosses or an orange-red color filling any other shape. What could these crosses filled with an orange-red color represent? A cross is a common symbol of Jesus, because Jesus died on a cross. When crucified on the cross, he would have bled from his wrists, feet, side wound, puncture wounds in his scalp, and perhaps the 120 or so scourge marks on his body. When wrapped in his burial cloth, much of this blood could have been transferred to the side of the cloth that was next to his skin. The crosses filled with the orange-red color covering the bottom piece in the Pray codex is a very good representation of Jesus’ blood that would have covered the side of Jesus’ burial shroud that was next to his body. Thus, there is good reason to believe that the crosses on this bottom piece in the Pray codex shows Jesus’s blood on his burial cloth, so this bottom piece is part of his burial cloth. 6) At some unknown time in the past, with the Shroud first folded at the midpoint of the width and then folded at the midpoint of the length, it appears that hot coals were dropped onto the folded Shroud. These hot coals sequentially burned through the four layers of the folded Shroud. This left four burn holes in an “L” pattern in each quadrant of the Shroud. This “L” pattern of burn holes on the Shroud consists of three holes in a straight line then the fourth hole at a ninety degree angle from the last of the three hole (Figures 2 and 3 of Ref. 7). The top piece in the Pray codex shows four holes in this same “L” shaped pattern. The bottom piece in the Pray codex probably also contains this “L” shaped pattern though one of the three holes is not visible due to the top piece hiding it. There are no other circles on the top or bottom pieces in the Pray codex, so the “L” patterns, one on the top piece and probably one on the bottom piece, are the only locations where circles are located on the top and bottom pieces. To have three and only three circles in a straight line and only one more circle, i.e., a fourth circle, located perpendicular to the straight line of three circles, with the fourth circle perpendicular to the circle at the end of the sequence of three circles, is a very unusual pattern. The only other place that this “L” shaped pattern of four circles occurs is on the Shroud of Turin, where they are the holes that were presumably produced by hot coals burning through the four layers of the Shroud as discussed above. There are multiple reasons that these four circles in an “L” pattern on the Pray codex cannot simply be decorations. 1) There are no other circles on the top and bottom pieces on the Pray codex (Figure 6 in Ref. 7) that are used for decorations. 2) Of the 16 scenes of this motif that were reviewed, only two of them contained circles as part of the decorations on the box and lid, and these two cases contained perhaps a hundred or more circles covering the box and lid. This is very inconsistent with only four circles in an “L” pattern. 3) Circles can also be occasionally used as decorations on clothing but these examples again use many more than four circles, usually have borders on either side of the line of circles (Figure 6 in Ref. 7), and do not show an “L” shaped pattern. Thus, the four holes in an “L” pattern in the Pray codex cannot be legitimately explained as mere decorations, but must be recognized as identifying the bottom image in the Pray codex as depicting the Shroud of Turin. 7) Of the 16 scenes reviewed, no other scene in this motif shows Jesus’ burial cloth piled up on top of the lid of the box, so we should not presume that the curved lines in the middle of the top piece in the Pray codex (Figure 6 in Ref. 7), between the left and right stair-step patterns, depicts Jesus’ burial cloth piled up on top of the lid of the box. What then do these curved lines in the middle of the top piece in the Pray codex represent? To identify the meaning of these curved lines, two more items should be identified. 7A) Due to the prominence of the nimbus (halo) around the head of the woman on the left, this woman is evidently Mary, the mother of Jesus. In her right arm she is holding the side view of a man’s face or head (Figure 8 of Ref. 7). On the left side of her right arm, in side view from the top downward, can be seen his forehead, ridge over his left eye, nose, closed mouth, and chin with an extended length to include his beard. 7B) At the top of the curved lines in the middle of the top piece on the Pray codex, a knife can be seen (Figure 7 in Ref. 7). This knife had evidently cut something from the top piece, leaving the remaining cloth in disarray. This section of the top cloth that was in disarray is what is misidentified as Jesus’ burial cloth piled up on top of the lid. Connecting this knife with the face that Mary is holding indicates that the face had been cut from the top piece of cloth so that the face had been part of the cloth. That this section of the top cloth that contained the face was given to Mary, Jesus’ mother, is best explained by the face being that of Jesus. Thus, the knife was used to cut the face of Jesus from the top cloth and then it was given to his mother. This indicates that this cloth contained the image of the face of Jesus, which also confirms that this cloth is the Shroud of Turin.

[@alancook4407]

Jesus is alive and yes he was crucified he is no myth

[@mrJety89]

A biblical tomb does not have a lid. It has a stone at the entrance, I mean the women even talk about it and about who's gonna roll the stone away, same as with Lazarus. What you imagine this picture shows does not fit the description of a tomb.

[@ReasontoDoubt]

That isn't relevant. What *is* relevant is whether it matches what medieval artists were drawing at the time, and it does.

[@mrJety89]

@@ReasontoDoubt FYI I think tat we're both missing the wider context of the pray codex in full. Like, what kind of texts does it contain, what other images are in it... does the author show knowledge about the usual habits of other medieval artists... I don't think either of us knows the wider context of this book. In this sense, focusing on just one or two images from a book is detrimental to the understanding here.

[@mrJety89]

@@ReasontoDoubt All the other examples that you show on your show, show a sarcophagus with clearly defined sides, straight lines with a clear understanding of geometry, a rectangular lid, the dimensions of which clearly match the dimensions of the rectangular open tops of the sarcophagi ... ALL features missing from the pray codex images. The author of this codex relied on a different artistic tradition from all the others shown. He was not trying to show what you try to show that he was trying to show.

[@ReasontoDoubt]

There's only three images in the entire codex. We show all three of them in this episode. All we have to ask is this: Are we more likely to get the image we got if the artist was trying to draw the Shroud of Turin specifically, or if they were doing artwork in a similar fashion to other artists in their time and place? At *best* I think the Pray Codex is inconclusive, and that's being as generous as I think it's reasonable to be.

[@mrJety89]

@@ReasontoDoubt Then be so generous if you wish, but geometry, or the lack of it thereof, speaks otherwise. Nice try. I was hoping that there would be more context to examine. If these are all the images in this book, then it makes sense, that the author would choose to depict a central theme of christianity. Wait, are you generous, or are you reasonable? Don't answer. Having examined all the evidence, you've made up your mind already. That's why I gave you mind nerd credentials... things that I know that I think are ought to be better known by others, hoping that you'd find some of it interesting.

[@Gazman67]

I need proof that it's fake otherwise it's real

[@ReasontoDoubt]

That seems to be backwards. There have been tons of false artifacts of Jesus produced throughout the Middle Ages. Wouldn't it make more sense to require evidence to believe it isn't another fake?

[@onlytruth6337]

if it is a forgery, make another and you will have million visitors in youtube, come on!

[@ReasontoDoubt]

No

[@myoneblackfriend3151]

Nakedness: I don’t think this point holds any water. That would be so common. In fact, Jesus washes the feet of his disciples at the last supper while dressed only in a towel.

[@ReasontoDoubt]

It was very common to depict Jesus as mostly naked but usually he was covered with a loincloth, sheet, etc. in medieval art. It was actually rare (according to the sources & art we could find) for Jesus to be depicted naked. That's not definitive by any means, but it is a point in favor of dependence.

[@starcityrc3298]

The bow tie clearly sends the message of an agenda. Yeah we already know what side of the debate you stand on

[@ReasontoDoubt]

I had to go back into the video to see which bow tie I had on, lol. I'm glad it's successful at communicating that I think all people should have equal rights & be treated with dignity and respect.

[@ftumschk]

The specific debate here is about the origins of an image on a piece of cloth, which has nothing to do with whatever "message" the bow tie represents.

[@ReasontoDoubt]

@@ftumschk True, but I'm of the opinion that every day is a good day to show support for the LGBTQ+ community

[@ftumschk]

@@ReasontoDoubt I'm with you there, but I was just pointing out to the OP that one's stance on that particular "agenda" is irrelevant to the subject-matter of the video.

[@metaldisciple]

Why don’t you take this info from a non biased interpretation. It’s always you trying to debunk rather than say “you know what this really is a mystery that no one cam solve”. Because it’s so impossible to you guys that there might be a God and that scared the hell out of you.

[@ReasontoDoubt]

It's not impossible, or at least it's possible that it's possible if that makes sense. The idea of a god existing doesn't scare me in the slightest. If I'm given sufficient evidence for their existence I'll stop being an atheist. That would be neat! The purpose of the channel is to try to model skepticism. To that end, we try to find the best data we can and analyze it as honestly as we can to come to our conclusions. They aren't always the conclusions we figured ahead of time (in this instance, I thought the artist with paint hypothesis would end up being better) but I can't help what the evidence is.

[@metaldisciple]

@@ReasontoDoubt there is more than enough evidence and I’m sick to death of you guys standing in my way lying

[@ReasontoDoubt]

@@metaldisciple I respectfully disagree, but we're not standing in the way of you doing anything. Worship whatever or whomever you want to, as long as you're not hurting anyone else.

[@starcityrc3298]

You guys are absolutely terrible at this. You lack any sort of objective view of this while trying to be under the guise of science. Science is objective. You guys are putting forth these ideas of debunking when it's clear that those have already been debunked themselves. You need to actually follow science and be objective when it comes to facts. Leave your anti-Christian feelings at the door so as to not influence the Scientific Facts related to the Topic.

[@ReasontoDoubt]

You know, one of the great ironies of being a KZbinr is seeing the comments right next to each other in a way commenters themselves rarely do. Commenter #1: You are biased, awful idiots! Commenter #2: You are the most objective, thorough researchers ever, you dropped your crown my King But that said if you have something specific you think we got wrong please do tell us. We're always looking to improve, and if we made a mistake we'll put it in the pinned comment

[@bigtimer6834]

This guy hasn’t clue! Total waste of time folks.

[@ReasontoDoubt]

Thanks for the constructive feedback! 😁

[@larrypicard8802]

Why doesn't he have a clue? Please be more specific.

[@metaldisciple]

Yeah you can tell the agenda by the bow tie

[@ReasontoDoubt]

@@metaldisciple Hey, don't be jealous of my incredible bow ties. You, too, can join the tie sporting elite

[@shaylagonser9341]

Your channel is fun to watch tbh but no matter how impossible it is to debunk the shroud it is still no where near as important as putting your trust and faith in Christ alone. Seek first the kingdom of God and his righteousness. Mathew 6:33.

[@ReasontoDoubt]

Glad you enjoy watching us heathens! 😄

[@GeorgeHutchins]

Is that a Homosexual bow tie?

[@ReasontoDoubt]

I do wear a rainbow tie to show solidarity with the LGBTQ+ community. Also, I like rainbows.