Dan McClellan is a Scholar of the Bible. He does not have the scientific knowledge to determine whether the Shroud of Turin is authentic or not! This is a SUMMARY of the STURP (Shroud of Turin Research Project) conclusions made by the numerous SCIENTISTS who conducted the study of the Shroud in 1978. "No pigments, paints, dyes or stains have been found on the fibrils. X-ray, fluorescence and microchemistry on the fibrils preclude the possibility of paint being used as a method for creating the image. Ultra Violet and infrared evaluation confirm these studies. Computer image enhancement and analysis by a device known as a VP-8 image analyzer show that the image has unique, three-dimensional information encoded in it. Microchemical evaluation has indicated no evidence of any spices, oils, or any biochemicals known to be produced by the body in life or in death. It is clear that there has been a direct contact of the Shroud with a body, which explains certain features such as scourge marks, as well as the blood. However, while this type of contact might explain some of the features of the torso, it is totally incapable of explaining the image of the face with the high resolution that has been amply demonstrated by photography. The basic problem from a scientific point of view is that some explanations which might be tenable from a chemical point of view, are precluded by physics. Contrariwise, certain physical explanations which may be attractive are completely precluded by the chemistry. For an adequate explanation for the image of the Shroud, one must have an explanation which is scientifically sound, from a physical, chemical, biological and medical viewpoint. At the present, this type of solution does not appear to be obtainable by the best efforts of the members of the Shroud Team. Furthermore, experiments in physics and chemistry with old linen have failed to reproduce adequately the phenomenon presented by the Shroud of Turin. The scientific consensus is that the image was produced by something which resulted in oxidation, dehydration and conjugation of the polysaccharide structure of the microfibrils of the linen itself. Such changes can be duplicated in the laboratory by certain chemical and physical processes. A similar type of change in linen can be obtained by sulfuric acid or heat. However, there are no chemical or physical methods known which can account for the totality of the image, nor can any combination of physical, chemical, biological or medical circumstances explain the image adequately. Thus, the answer to the question of how the image was produced or what produced the image remains, now, as it has in the past, a mystery. We can conclude for now that the Shroud image is that of a real human form of a scourged, crucified man. It is not the product of an artist. The blood stains are composed of hemoglobin and also give a positive test for serum albumin. The image is an ongoing mystery and until further chemical studies are made, perhaps by this group of scientists, or perhaps by some scientists in the future, the problem remains unsolved."
When it's a matter of dogma, people will happily accept any "proof" that supports their dogmatism and will willingly skip any evidence that "proof" is a fraud. Because of dogmatism.
Dan McClellan is a Scholar of the Bible. He does not have the scientific knowledge to determine whether the Shroud of Turin is authentic or not! This is a SUMMARY of the STURP (Shroud of Turin Research Project) conclusions made by the numerous SCIENTISTS who conducted the study of the Shroud in 1978. "No pigments, paints, dyes or stains have been found on the fibrils. X-ray, fluorescence and microchemistry on the fibrils preclude the possibility of paint being used as a method for creating the image. Ultra Violet and infrared evaluation confirm these studies. Computer image enhancement and analysis by a device known as a VP-8 image analyzer show that the image has unique, three-dimensional information encoded in it. Microchemical evaluation has indicated no evidence of any spices, oils, or any biochemicals known to be produced by the body in life or in death. It is clear that there has been a direct contact of the Shroud with a body, which explains certain features such as scourge marks, as well as the blood. However, while this type of contact might explain some of the features of the torso, it is totally incapable of explaining the image of the face with the high resolution that has been amply demonstrated by photography. The basic problem from a scientific point of view is that some explanations which might be tenable from a chemical point of view, are precluded by physics. Contrariwise, certain physical explanations which may be attractive are completely precluded by the chemistry. For an adequate explanation for the image of the Shroud, one must have an explanation which is scientifically sound, from a physical, chemical, biological and medical viewpoint. At the present, this type of solution does not appear to be obtainable by the best efforts of the members of the Shroud Team. Furthermore, experiments in physics and chemistry with old linen have failed to reproduce adequately the phenomenon presented by the Shroud of Turin. The scientific consensus is that the image was produced by something which resulted in oxidation, dehydration and conjugation of the polysaccharide structure of the microfibrils of the linen itself. Such changes can be duplicated in the laboratory by certain chemical and physical processes. A similar type of change in linen can be obtained by sulfuric acid or heat. However, there are no chemical or physical methods known which can account for the totality of the image, nor can any combination of physical, chemical, biological or medical circumstances explain the image adequately. Thus, the answer to the question of how the image was produced or what produced the image remains, now, as it has in the past, a mystery. We can conclude for now that the Shroud image is that of a real human form of a scourged, crucified man. It is not the product of an artist. The blood stains are composed of hemoglobin and also give a positive test for serum albumin. The image is an ongoing mystery and until further chemical studies are made, perhaps by this group of scientists, or perhaps by some scientists in the future, the problem remains unsolved."
From studying flat earth belief, I have learned that, in cases like this, "proof" means "a reason to believe". Additionally, there is a rider to that definition, in that, there is no need for the reason to make sense. As you point out, these "proofs" or reasons are only acceptable because of dogma.
@@Julio_Siqueira as far as I know and understand, affirmations have to be proved, not disproved. If I were to say that the Shroud was made after my image since I travelled in time back to the 14th century, then I should need to present unbiased and testable evidence. Then, starting with a conclusion, that the shroud is real, and then desperately trying to find even the tiniest evidence that is not impossible, is not evidence enough. Not unless the "experiment" can be replicated by different independent unbiased groups of scientists and not proven wrong. In that regards, McClelen is right.
@@Julio_Siqueira There is a claim- The shroud is genuine. Dan McCllelan has produced evidence and argument that casts doubt on the authenticity of the object. It is now the responsibility of the claimant or supporters of the claim to address the evidence. Provide evidence or argument that demonstrates the cloth could have been woven in the early 1st century CE. Provide evidence or argument to account for the unusual physiology portrayed in the image. etc. The burden of proof is on the claimant.
That 2022 article is a great example of begging the question. It assumes their conclusion is true as part of their argument. They want to prove their dating method works, so they analyze the Shroud of Turin with it. But there’s no way to verify if the analysis they get back is accurate, since we don’t know for certain if the Shroud existed prior to 1300. So the only way to say the dating method works is if you first presume the Shroud is authentic. The dating method is used to prove the Shroud is real, but also, the Shroud is used to prove the dating method works.
That wasn’t the first time they tested the method, it was the first time they tested the method on the shroud. Wether it was better then carbon dating is what was in question.
@@meej33 Thats not how you date fossils. Dating fossils is supported by a wide variety of external factors. You dont need to compare a fossil against another fossil when you can look at the rate of decay for isotopes and then conclude how old a fossils is based on the decay of the isotopes. Dont assume that people who knows more than you just guess.
So the theory is that a man was crucified and wrapped in an incredibly rare and expensive piece of linen, which would have been incredibly unusual since people who were crucified at the time were left on the crosses as a warning to others to obey the authorities. Or the bodies were disposed of in a mass grave. But the body was carefully wrapped in this linen and after being dead for a couple days this man came back to life and unwrapped himself and left the guarded tomb (again there is no logic to a crucified man being put in an expensive tomb and then for it to be guarded). And then someone had the warewithal to go collect this piece of linen and properly store it and care for it for over 1,300 years and wisely move it to a Christian church in northern France. Seems completely reasonable.
I agree with most of what you’re saying, but, according to the Bible, Joseph of Arimathea had Jesus taken down, properly dressed, and entombed, requests which were honored due to Joseph’s status and the Romans not wanting to push the tense relations with the Jews any farther. So that chunk, at least, has already been addressed as far as the logic goes. That said, the Shroud is absolutely BS, on every level.
I know someone who lost their job over the "Virgin Mary" water stain in Tampa/Clearwater FL back in 1996. She went there to camp out and worship bc she believed it was a "miracle". She was fired for calling in sick for a week & then getting spotted on the news by her boss. 😅 People still go there to pray 30 years later. They argue that bc it "appeared" just before Christmas & it looks a lot like the way people who have never seen Mary painted her in the 15th century, it has to be a manifestation from God! If you've never seen it you should Google it. My point is once they latch on to a "miracle" that "proves" what they believe, you can't explain to them how water splatter patterns are unique & that pattern is in line with every other water pattern & no magic had to be involved to create it - none of that matters. The shroud is more complicated than the water stain but watching Mel reminded me so much of that lady trying to explain why she believed the water stain was a miracle.
One objection that I never see made, and that I think should be made, is that the image does not match the image one would expect to find created by a body wrapped in a shroud (which would have encircled the body) or even draped across the body (which would have distorted the face). The image is that of a rigid photographic plate suspended above, and below the body.
The Bishop of Troyes specifically says it’s a forgery, right around the time of its first appearance in history and in line with the carbon dating results. Crazies: Obviously this is ancient.
The hairstyle of a Jewish man from the first century... and the hairstyle of a couple hundred thousand men and women at Woodstock in 1969. And the hairstyle of a few billion other people before, between and since.
I have been a physicist for over 50 years. I had dinner once with one of the physicists who did the Carbon 14 measurements on the Shroud of Turin. They treated it as any other sample and found it was medieval. They quoted uncertainties of the measurements, and the possible range does not allow for a first century date. Over my career, I have always felt that if you have a strong preference for the outcome of an experiment, you shouldn't be doing it. You have to want to learn what the experiment is telling you more than to get a specific outcome.
He was awesome when he was young and made some great movies, but unfortunately, his person isn't good. I loved the very first Mad Max movie. It's a classic
Doesn’t the Bible itself refute the shroud of Turin? I distinctly remember reading that Jesus was wrapped in strips of linen…strips being plural? Not one big body length single strip?
The curse of fire strikes again! 😅 Iirc the shroud survived fire two or three times in its recorded history. I have always taken it as a sign that god wanted to get rid of it.
Jim Caveizal claimed to have been struck by lightning while filming Mel's movie The Passion. Specifically, while hanging on a cross. Having since learned more about them, assuming such a wild claim is true, I can honestly say the fact that they took it as a sign is unsurprising - the specific sign they chose to take it as though, is just...hilarious. To be fair I don't know if Jim CLaizve isn't like that _because_ he took a bolt to the brain-matter.
The propaganda is effective only when you stifle critical thought. This isn't philosophy this is a science claim, if there is a method delivery to even character the totals necessary from different tests/procedures, then it's plausible it is natural( it makes sense on both sides of the argument - there is only natural no matter how you wish to extend science further- and miracles must be traceable otherwise science( an on going, and never complete studying of nature) will be silent to the how and especially specifically when or who.
@@AtheistRizz-d6y This is a very short life. The next one doesn’t end. Please ask God to sincerely reveal himself to you. You have everything to lose or everything to gain
They did use artifacts of known age to generate a calibration curve (I think 9 total, which definitely isn't enough especially for a S curve fit). I don't personally know how many more samples are available to use as a validation set.
They absolutely aren’t credible, and I kinda agree. However it doesn’t mean the shroud isn’t real. I’ve read a lot of research from both sides on the shroud, and the more reasonable explanation is that it’s real and its image creation is unexplained. Most likely created by a radiation burst. This dude got it wrong in the video.
@@pyratellamarecordingstudio1062 Actually, I only said their credibility made their discussion of authenticity irrelevant and laughable. I don’t really have a position on the Shroud. I believe the scholars and scientists are infinitely more qualified than I to opine.
Interesting fact about the hair mark: there is absolutely no way that a human body wrapped in a shroud and left in a laying position would have left that sort of imprint. The hair should have been floating. According to Luigi Garlaschelli, who made an accurate replica of the shroud, the face was made by placing a bas-relief under the fabric and painting over it. This explains a strange mark in the neck region that doesn't match any anatomical structure. The rest of the body was painted in the same way, over the body of some guy.
Any artist that works in 3D on computers with 2D textures formed to the 3D surface, knows that the shroud is fake. What you described as the method of creating the shroud is correct.
The fact that the Shroud of Turin is, well, a shroud is a major piece of evidence against it being authentic. Jewish burial practices at the time did not make use of a single piece of cloth. Rather it was strips of cloth being wrapped around the body. In fact the Gospel of John (19:40) specifically describes Jesus's body being wrapped in strips of cloth.
@@LM-jz9vh The Sudarium is a cloth from the 500s that has some dark specs on it in no particular pattern. A sample was provided to a lab for testing but the sample was too contaminated by other material to give its proper age. It's about the right size to be a face cloth for a Jewish burial, but otherwise there's nothing differentiating it from any of the thousands of totally really real relics floating around.
@@Nymaz It's hard to find objective, unbiased information on it. A quick Google search brought up the below: The Sudarium of Oviedo is a bloodstained linen cloth that is believed to have covered Jesus Christ's head after his crucifixion: Location: Kept in the Cámara Santa of the Cathedral of San Salvador in Oviedo, Spain Size: Approximately 84 x 53 cm Appearance: Thin, creased, and yellowed Stains: Numerous stains, including blood, flower pollen, wax, soot, and fungus Other features: Covered with aloe, which was used as a preservative in first-century Jewish burials The Sudarium of Oviedo is also known as the Veil of Oviedo. It is thought to have been made by hand. Here are some things to know about the Sudarium of Oviedo: The cloth's bloodstains are believed to match the wounds made by the crown of thorns. The cloth's bloodstains are believed to be lifeblood, not postmortem blood. The cloth has been studied by the investigative team EDICES since 1989. The cloth has been compared to the Shroud of Turin.
EXACTLY! The first clue it is not real is that a real shroud is wrapped AROUND a body. It HAS TO BE wrapped, not laid end to end like a beach towel, to function for the reason a body was shrouded in the first place.
Well, at one point in the 90's, he WAS very vocal in telling anyone and everyone that he was "the King of all media!" Maybe he WAS the inspiration for the shroud! See, the lizardmen who mated with human females (and still do!) probably spawned Howard Stern, putting their faith in him as the savior of the world but then, somehow, the lizardmen took a mold of Howard's face and got in their time machine and...🤣😂👽🤖🤡💯
The whole "the image was burned on to the shroud" rhetoric is ridiculous, it's just really old painted cloth. The 1913 Catholic Encyclopedia makes a good point about the current state of the shroud vs the state it was in when it was still new. "Lastly, the difficulty must be noticed that while the witnesses of the fifteenth and early sixteenth centuries speak of the image as being then so vivid that the blood seemed freshly shed, it is now darkened and hardly recognizable without minute attention. On the supposition that this is an authentic relic dating from the year A.D. 30, why should it have retained its brilliance through countless journeys and changes of climate for fifteen centuries, and then in four centuries more have become almost invisible? On the other hand if it be a fabrication of the fifteenth century this is exactly what we should expect."
Solid argument. If it’s so old why did it look on discovery like fresh blood then look like - hm old dried up blood now. That it be a fabrication is clear to them.
No. Impossible. There has been no pigment or paint ever detected on the image of the body. No acid, no known image creation method. If you want to rely on a 1913 quote from a catholic encyclopedia then just know you’re relying on technology and understanding over a century old. There’s some fascinating scientific research that has been done in the shroud in the last 50 years.
The earliest account of the shroud says it was painted; other medieval accounts say that the image looked like it was made from freshly shed blood, in other words, red. In 1978 what seems to be faint red pigment (some claim blood) is found on the fibers, in 1988, carbon dating places the cloth in between 1260-1390. In 2009 the shroud is reproduced using medieval methods and then artificially aged with an oven and some washing resulting in an image without paint.
@@TheOneCalledSloth nope, none of that is accurate today. No pigment has ever been found. The shroud has never been reproduced accurately. Look into it, it’s fascinating. We can’t even reproduce it with today’s technology. The image is only on a few microfibers of one side of the cloth, not on the other. It can’t be acid then, no pigment found, there’s no reasonable explanation. The 2009 reproduction actually failed these details and others. But headline readers wouldn’t know that. The carbon dating , unfortunately was taken on a corner where it had been repaired, so it’s not accurate. If we could get a new carbon rating in the middle of the shroud where it hadn’t been repaired then we could have real scientific evidence.
I don't understand some Christians' need for science to prove them right. Like they don't understand the "I willingly choose to believe this highly improbable series of stories in the hope it works out really well for me after I die, even though it could well be a load of nonsense" part of faith.
That's not a part of faith. The word 'faith' has been much abused by modern English. It doesn't mean 'believing without evidence'; it means 'trusting the promises'. Completely different thing.
It ses to me that of you want to argue that a new dating method is superior to existing methods, you should test it on objects of known age, not of objects who's age is contentious.
Idk why people are obsessed about the shroud. It's not in any way verifiable evidence of the biblical claims, and it's definitely not a 2000-year fabric 🤦🏾♂️.
Even if the shroud was created during the fourth decade CE, it doesn’t prove it was Jesus. Crucifixion was a common practice of the Romans during that era. Why is there no mention of it in the Bible? Mel didn’t even get the history of William Wallace right in the, otherwise entertaining movie, Braveheart, but we are supposed to trust his expertise on this?
Joe Rogan just mimics the Tucker Carlson "Hey I'm just asking questions..." schtick, but tries to conjure an air of credibility for it by performing it, unlike Tucker does, with a mellow delivery.
That any rational person would think that a man from the middle East, in the first century would be 6 feet tall. More like 54. And that there was some particular Hairstyle that men wore in the first century. Most men wore their hair short because of problems with lice, etc. not like 15 century dutch painters that turn Christ into a California surfer dude. 7:28
I've never heard a good explanation for the face looking like a photograph. To cover all of the terrain of a face, and show the creases of the lips, eye sockets, and corners of the nose, you'd need to push a flat cloth into those recesses. And then when that cloth is laid flat it is not going to look like the face in the Shroud of Turin, or any kind of recognizable human face. The features should be stretched and distorted the same way continents are on a Mercator projection map. Usually when I bring this up, proponents of the Shroud say that Jesus radiated some kind of magical energy as he left his body. Which, of course, has no actual supporting evidence.
A negative image is pretty easy to explain. Dichromatic images consisting of a light colour with a dark colour were fairly common in the medieval period. The pigment of the dark colour fades away over time, as organic pigments are known to do. Instead of a medium-light pigment against a dark pigment, you are left with a medium-light pigment against a lighter background, which looks a lot like a photographic negative.
Thank you so much. I am ashamed I was once a christian and actually believed this "shroud" had to be real as it was claimed that even today, people can't paint a negative image. Love your explanation.
@@johnnehrich9601 No need to be ashamed about personal realization and growth. The fact the the shroud isn't the burial cloth of Christ really doesn't mean the Bible is or isn't "true", however one defines true. It just means that a lot of medieval Europeans were crazy over relics and didn't think critically about them. I suspect it often had more to do with secular status than religious faith.
His interesting claim about how the weave was typical of the 1st century is a common tactic of lots of apologists. They take a known piece of information that refutes their claim, and then lie about it and say it actually supports them, either by lying about what the data actually is, or by lying about its interpretation. More “serious” apologists tend to lie about the interpretation, because it’s too easy to google things these days and find out that the data itself is made up, but it’s pretty easy to say “well that’s just the interpretation of atheist scholars.”
I've seen shroud apologists claim the quality of the weave demonstrates the fact that the cloth was expensive -- i.e. fit for a king -- and rare (hence no other examples found). They will go to any lengths in their desperation to be right.
They are desperate for any kind if physical evidence to support their beliefs, If your faith is in only what you can see and touch, you have no faith at all! "Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen." (Hebrews 11:1)
@aahhhhhhhhhhhhh - Yeah, it's pretty consistent with the religious art of the medieval period in terms of depictions of the human form and the wounds. I meant more about how the fibers are individually colored or dyed and then woven, and not clumped together as if they were slathered with paint.
my hypothesis is that they used a form of rust "dyeing" you have iron items wrapped in vinegar soaked material make sure the material is firmly attached to the metal and keep moist with vinegar for about a week. its a sort of burn, a chemical reaction between the rust and the mild acid.
The SoT is an excellent candidate for carbon 14 dating. C14 dating says it is Medieval. There is no rational reason to dispute this, unless you think "lying to get money" is a rational reason.
It's a 2D image. A 3D person would have shroud wrapping around face and body and thighs. Like skins for a video game, look at a face before it is applied to the mess.
THANK YOU! It isn't a shroud. A shroud is wrapped AROUND a corpse, with a separate smaller piece for the head, because a body begins to decompose. It attracts maggots, smells (reeks), and oozes liquids. Nowadays, we don't tend to see such extreme outputs because of embalming. On the other hand, before embalming, medical science was not always accurate about death actually occurring. People pronounced "dead" came back to life with enough frequency (or at least tales of this), that people were terrified of being buried alive. So traditionally people held a wake for about three days, when these effects of decomposition became unmistakable, to literally see if the person would WAKE up. PS - one of the gospels actually describes Jesus's shroud as being in two pieces, with the second the wrapping for the head.
Exactly. I like to point this out as the most obvious proof that it's fake. Unfortunately, people will just ignore this and change the subject when it's pointed out in a debate.
while I agree the Shroud is clearly medieval artwork I think this is a poor objection. The preferred hypothesis among Shroudies is that Jesus' image was made like a photograph on each side of the cloth (using neutron radiation hocus pocus) which, while a bad explanation overall, does explain this aspect of the appearance. They do not think it's a giant sweat stain.
@@benroberts2222 That doesn't solve the problem. The claim is that the shroud was wrapped around the body when the image was created. But there is no way for it to wrap around the body without some fabric passing over the top of the head. It would be impossible for the image to line up with the front and back of a 3 dimensional body without allowance for it passing over the head.
@dwaneanderson8039 their explanation for how it happened was radiation being emitted in straight lines, both in the forward and backward direction. No image of the top of the head would be there because radiation wasn't being emitted in the "up" direction, from the body's prone perspective. Just ask Otangelo. Yes it's incredibly ad hoc, silly, and unnecessary (since the mechanism is "God wanted it to be that way" and God doesn't need special radiation to put an image on a cloth) but those are different objections.
@@benroberts2222 It doesn't matter if there is no image of the top of the head. There has to be fabric passing over the head anyway between the front and back even if it has no image on it. Otherwise, you don't have enough fabric to line up the images of the front and back with the body.
is there evidence of this weave in ancient roman times in the area where Jesus lived? ChatGPT said: Yes, there is evidence of advanced weaving techniques, including patterns similar to the 3:1 herringbone weave, in regions where Jesus lived during Roman times (1st century CE), specifically in Judea and the broader Levant. While direct examples of the 3:1 herringbone weave are scarce, here’s what we know about the textile practices in this area:The 3:1 herringbone weave is an ancient textile technique. The earliest confirmed historical evidence of this weave dates to the Iron Age, specifically around the 6th-7th century BCE. This is evidenced by textiles found in archaeological sites such as Hallstatt in Austria, which was a significant center of the Hallstatt culture. At Hallstatt, fragments of textiles employing herringbone patterns were discovered, demonstrating advanced weaving techniques for the period. These textiles were likely produced on vertical looms, showcasing the skill and sophistication of early European weavers. so maybe the weave style isn't really contraindicative.
When people need to believe, they will. When they don’t need, they’ll stop the believing. At the root: fear. Always fear. A life lived in fear is a life half lived, and that half is filled with stories.
I'm fairly familiar with WAXS , the technique mentioned. There are no publications using it for dating. Those guys introduce the technique and a bunch of assumptions and test a single fabric, the shroud. It smells BS, until someone tests a bunch of ancient fabrics.
I think they got a couple of papers published in minor journals (this allowed the method to fly under the radar of both people who know the technique and textiles.) However, that said I have a lot of issues with the method. The textiles they used were all from arid regions and assuming that the shroud is older than 700 years, it spent at least 700 years in humid climates of France and northern Italy. The other issue I have is, they didn't test using textiles of the same ages but with different amounts of wear.
The things is, a shroud would wrap around a body. Any image produced when draped in this fashion would be distorted if the fabric were presented to the viewer flat. But the image we see on the fabric presented flat shows an undistorted image of a human likeness.
Dan, I think the whole "cannot cross your hands and cover your groin without lifting your elbows off the ground " is kinda covered by Rigor Mortis! Especially if the back and knees bowed slightly at the time of death. Which would happen if you died nailed to a cross.
It should always be mentioned that the radiocarbon dating studies has been repeated dozens of times by independent labs, using multiple techniques and multiple isotopes, and they all date the Shroud of Turin to approximately 1320 CE. That's when the fabric was manufactured. The scientific consensus on this isn't vague or up in the air. They have a firm date of 1320 CE.
Interesting history: A 3-D rendition of the shroud is on display in the Catholic Chapel at the US Air Force Academy in Colorado Springs CO. This is because one of the professors was obsessed with the shroud and commissioned a young artist, who happened to be a member of my church in Denver, to create a cardboard model of the 3-D image which was then encased with fiber glass and put on display in the chapel. This was 1979 I believe.
And Ken Ham, Nicholas Adamopoulos (aka Nick Adams), and "Banana Man"...I'm not sure of his name, but he sits there and spouts how a banana proves God, without realising that what he's holding is the product of human selective breeding to make the wild bananas actually edible :P
When the zealot challenges the rational, it is "righteous", but when the rational challenges the zealot it is "blasphemy".
Dan McClellan is a Scholar of the Bible. He does not have the scientific knowledge to determine whether the Shroud of Turin is authentic or not!
This is a SUMMARY of the STURP (Shroud of Turin Research Project) conclusions made by the numerous SCIENTISTS who conducted the study of the Shroud in 1978.
"No pigments, paints, dyes or stains have been found on the fibrils. X-ray, fluorescence and microchemistry on the fibrils preclude the possibility of paint being used as a method for creating the image. Ultra Violet and infrared evaluation confirm these studies. Computer image enhancement and analysis by a device known as a VP-8 image analyzer show that the image has unique, three-dimensional information encoded in it. Microchemical evaluation has indicated no evidence of any spices, oils, or any biochemicals known to be produced by the body in life or in death. It is clear that there has been a direct contact of the Shroud with a body, which explains certain features such as scourge marks, as well as the blood. However, while this type of contact might explain some of the features of the torso, it is totally incapable of explaining the image of the face with the high resolution that has been amply demonstrated by photography.
The basic problem from a scientific point of view is that some explanations which might be tenable from a chemical point of view, are precluded by physics. Contrariwise, certain physical explanations which may be attractive are completely precluded by the chemistry. For an adequate explanation for the image of the Shroud, one must have an explanation which is scientifically sound, from a physical, chemical, biological and medical viewpoint. At the present, this type of solution does not appear to be obtainable by the best efforts of the members of the Shroud Team. Furthermore, experiments in physics and chemistry with old linen have failed to reproduce adequately the phenomenon presented by the Shroud of Turin. The scientific consensus is that the image was produced by something which resulted in oxidation, dehydration and conjugation of the polysaccharide structure of the microfibrils of the linen itself. Such changes can be duplicated in the laboratory by certain chemical and physical processes. A similar type of change in linen can be obtained by sulfuric acid or heat. However, there are no chemical or physical methods known which can account for the totality of the image, nor can any combination of physical, chemical, biological or medical circumstances explain the image adequately.
Thus, the answer to the question of how the image was produced or what produced the image remains, now, as it has in the past, a mystery.
We can conclude for now that the Shroud image is that of a real human form of a scourged, crucified man. It is not the product of an artist. The blood stains are composed of hemoglobin and also give a positive test for serum albumin. The image is an ongoing mystery and until further chemical studies are made, perhaps by this group of scientists, or perhaps by some scientists in the future, the problem remains unsolved."
Thank you.
Pithy. Can I steal that?
REPENT OF YOUR SINS AND BELIEVE IN JESUS CHRIST IS LORD! HE LOVES YOU!
@natarianimationsandmorehe dispises people and has to blackmail them to the faith. Worship me or else.
Damn, I can't believe Mel Gibson and Joe Rogan were wrong about something. This has shaken me to my core.
I don't know how I'll find the will to go on.😉
Lol
I know, who would have thought, eh 🤣🤣
The sarcasm is strong in this one.
That well known scientist and historian; Mel Gibson.
I can hear Danny Glovers line from Lethal Weapon. "Mel, we're getting too old for this s***."
And then you ca hear Mel saying “bblublublublupluplublble… poink. I’m crazy, man. I made the shroud for Jesus.”🫣
@Evolution.1859 lol!
When it's a matter of dogma, people will happily accept any "proof" that supports their dogmatism and will willingly skip any evidence that "proof" is a fraud. Because of dogmatism.
Dan McClellan is a Scholar of the Bible. He does not have the scientific knowledge to determine whether the Shroud of Turin is authentic or not!
This is a SUMMARY of the STURP (Shroud of Turin Research Project) conclusions made by the numerous SCIENTISTS who conducted the study of the Shroud in 1978.
"No pigments, paints, dyes or stains have been found on the fibrils. X-ray, fluorescence and microchemistry on the fibrils preclude the possibility of paint being used as a method for creating the image. Ultra Violet and infrared evaluation confirm these studies. Computer image enhancement and analysis by a device known as a VP-8 image analyzer show that the image has unique, three-dimensional information encoded in it. Microchemical evaluation has indicated no evidence of any spices, oils, or any biochemicals known to be produced by the body in life or in death. It is clear that there has been a direct contact of the Shroud with a body, which explains certain features such as scourge marks, as well as the blood. However, while this type of contact might explain some of the features of the torso, it is totally incapable of explaining the image of the face with the high resolution that has been amply demonstrated by photography.
The basic problem from a scientific point of view is that some explanations which might be tenable from a chemical point of view, are precluded by physics. Contrariwise, certain physical explanations which may be attractive are completely precluded by the chemistry. For an adequate explanation for the image of the Shroud, one must have an explanation which is scientifically sound, from a physical, chemical, biological and medical viewpoint. At the present, this type of solution does not appear to be obtainable by the best efforts of the members of the Shroud Team. Furthermore, experiments in physics and chemistry with old linen have failed to reproduce adequately the phenomenon presented by the Shroud of Turin. The scientific consensus is that the image was produced by something which resulted in oxidation, dehydration and conjugation of the polysaccharide structure of the microfibrils of the linen itself. Such changes can be duplicated in the laboratory by certain chemical and physical processes. A similar type of change in linen can be obtained by sulfuric acid or heat. However, there are no chemical or physical methods known which can account for the totality of the image, nor can any combination of physical, chemical, biological or medical circumstances explain the image adequately.
Thus, the answer to the question of how the image was produced or what produced the image remains, now, as it has in the past, a mystery.
We can conclude for now that the Shroud image is that of a real human form of a scourged, crucified man. It is not the product of an artist. The blood stains are composed of hemoglobin and also give a positive test for serum albumin. The image is an ongoing mystery and until further chemical studies are made, perhaps by this group of scientists, or perhaps by some scientists in the future, the problem remains unsolved."
From studying flat earth belief, I have learned that, in cases like this, "proof" means "a reason to believe". Additionally, there is a rider to that definition, in that, there is no need for the reason to make sense. As you point out, these "proofs" or reasons are only acceptable because of dogma.
McClellen himself seems to have made this mistake in his video, though from the standpoint of a denier. We sure need unbiaded analysis.
@@Julio_Siqueira as far as I know and understand, affirmations have to be proved, not disproved. If I were to say that the Shroud was made after my image since I travelled in time back to the 14th century, then I should need to present unbiased and testable evidence. Then, starting with a conclusion, that the shroud is real, and then desperately trying to find even the tiniest evidence that is not impossible, is not evidence enough. Not unless the "experiment" can be replicated by different independent unbiased groups of scientists and not proven wrong. In that regards, McClelen is right.
@@Julio_Siqueira There is a claim- The shroud is genuine. Dan McCllelan has produced evidence and argument that casts doubt on the authenticity of the object. It is now the responsibility of the claimant or supporters of the claim to address the evidence. Provide evidence or argument that demonstrates the cloth could have been woven in the early 1st century CE. Provide evidence or argument to account for the unusual physiology portrayed in the image. etc.
The burden of proof is on the claimant.
That 2022 article is a great example of begging the question. It assumes their conclusion is true as part of their argument.
They want to prove their dating method works, so they analyze the Shroud of Turin with it. But there’s no way to verify if the analysis they get back is accurate, since we don’t know for certain if the Shroud existed prior to 1300. So the only way to say the dating method works is if you first presume the Shroud is authentic. The dating method is used to prove the Shroud is real, but also, the Shroud is used to prove the dating method works.
That is how you date fossils, every YEC knows that.
@@meej33 We aren't talking about dating fossils though.
That wasn’t the first time they tested the method, it was the first time they tested the method on the shroud. Wether it was better then carbon dating is what was in question.
They actually explain how they run the same test on a shroud found in Massada to buttress the reliability of the method...
@@meej33 Thats not how you date fossils. Dating fossils is supported by a wide variety of external factors. You dont need to compare a fossil against another fossil when you can look at the rate of decay for isotopes and then conclude how old a fossils is based on the decay of the isotopes. Dont assume that people who knows more than you just guess.
Who TF would take anything Mel Gibson says seriously?
Joe
Make religeous delusion great again.
Mel Gibson
Yeah, why is he suddenly an expert here? Promoting a new Jesus movie?
Have you not seen Leathal Weapon 4? I mean, that film alone gives Gibson the credibility to state that the Shroud of Turin is authentic. Duh.
So the theory is that a man was crucified and wrapped in an incredibly rare and expensive piece of linen, which would have been incredibly unusual since people who were crucified at the time were left on the crosses as a warning to others to obey the authorities. Or the bodies were disposed of in a mass grave. But the body was carefully wrapped in this linen and after being dead for a couple days this man came back to life and unwrapped himself and left the guarded tomb (again there is no logic to a crucified man being put in an expensive tomb and then for it to be guarded). And then someone had the warewithal to go collect this piece of linen and properly store it and care for it for over 1,300 years and wisely move it to a Christian church in northern France. Seems completely reasonable.
Sure, it's a one in a million chance. But everyone knows that those crop up nine times out of ten.
Wherewithal*
You make a strong case.. it’s not absolutely impossible. 😁
It could have got to France on a boat built from fragments of the True Cross. Can anyone prove that it didn't? Case proven. 😉😛
I agree with most of what you’re saying, but, according to the Bible, Joseph of Arimathea had Jesus taken down, properly dressed, and entombed, requests which were honored due to Joseph’s status and the Romans not wanting to push the tense relations with the Jews any farther. So that chunk, at least, has already been addressed as far as the logic goes.
That said, the Shroud is absolutely BS, on every level.
The first red flag was seeing Joe Rogan and Mel Gibson.
Exactly.
Alex Jones will have both on soon ...
Gibson's House burned down while he was in this interview.
The first red flag was the claim the Shroud was authentic...
@@helenaconstantinethat's gotta be coincidence, God wouldn't do him like that. Well, unless he was trying to teach him something.
I know someone who lost their job over the "Virgin Mary" water stain in Tampa/Clearwater FL back in 1996. She went there to camp out and worship bc she believed it was a "miracle". She was fired for calling in sick for a week & then getting spotted on the news by her boss. 😅
People still go there to pray 30 years later. They argue that bc it "appeared" just before Christmas & it looks a lot like the way people who have never seen Mary painted her in the 15th century, it has to be a manifestation from God! If you've never seen it you should Google it. My point is once they latch on to a "miracle" that "proves" what they believe, you can't explain to them how water splatter patterns are unique & that pattern is in line with every other water pattern & no magic had to be involved to create it - none of that matters. The shroud is more complicated than the water stain but watching Mel reminded me so much of that lady trying to explain why she believed the water stain was a miracle.
One could make a very crude joke about Mary and miraculous splatter patterns.
@@jakeaurod
I once lived in apartment next door to a woman who had a religious experience at least three nights each week. 😮
@@jakeaurod But you wouldn't do that :P
Here in Sydney there was a stain or moss growth that some people believed looked like Jesus. I thought it looked like Charles Manson :P
@@jakeaurod I like the way you think.
One objection that I never see made, and that I think should be made, is that the image does not match the image one would expect to find created by a body wrapped in a shroud (which would have encircled the body) or even draped across the body (which would have distorted the face). The image is that of a rigid photographic plate suspended above, and below the body.
What's more, the image on the shroud looks absolutely nothing like a first century Jew would have looked like.
There's something else. The Bible account in John clearly states that there was a separate wrapping for the head.
@@thhseeking
I can't find any such verse.
@@PaulFiorillait doesn’t even look human, to be frank. I’ve never seen a hand so massive, the fingertips reach the outer thighs 🤦🤦🤦
@@cygnusustus Really? Maybe you should try reading your bible properly. John 20:7.
9:00 "I don't know if it's real or not"
Finally Mel speaks the truth.
The Bishop of Troyes specifically says it’s a forgery, right around the time of its first appearance in history and in line with the carbon dating results.
Crazies: Obviously this is ancient.
Since when an atheist believes anything that a Bishop said?
There are plenty of Christians that have never believed what a bishop has said.
@@antoniussukardi9029 Super Derp.
@@antoniussukardi9029 How do you know that they are an atheist when there is no explicit evidence of such?
@antoniussukardi9029 A lot of Bishops and priests are non- believers
The hairstyle of a Jewish man from the first century... and the hairstyle of a couple hundred thousand men and women at Woodstock in 1969. And the hairstyle of a few billion other people before, between and since.
Yep, he was really stretching it there...
My god, it's the Shroud of Jimi Hendrix!
I read a lot on the Shroud and never heard of such a claim.
I have been a physicist for over 50 years. I had dinner once with one of the physicists who did the Carbon 14 measurements on the Shroud of Turin. They treated it as any other sample and found it was medieval. They quoted uncertainties of the measurements, and the possible range does not allow for a first century date. Over my career, I have always felt that if you have a strong preference for the outcome of an experiment, you shouldn't be doing it. You have to want to learn what the experiment is telling you more than to get a specific outcome.
Mel Gibson was my first celebrity crush, and I'm not sure there's anything more embarrassing in my life.
We listen and do not judge. 🙏🏿
Mel Gibson told this lie, and then his house burned down.
Maybe not a good idea to lie about god
He was awesome when he was young and made some great movies, but unfortunately, his person isn't good.
I loved the very first Mad Max movie. It's a classic
I, for one, don't know how to love him. He's just a man
Come onnnnn he was pretty hot
I find it hilarious that Jesus was allegedly 6 feet tall.
Did he also like long walks on the beach too, Mel? 😂
Yeah! Because of the drippy poem "Footprints." 😂😂😅
@ Now there is some fan fiction I don’t want to think about. 🤣
"No, we didn't say that Jesus was God, we said that Jesus was Godzilla," - All of the First Century Middle Eastern peasants who were his Disciples.
@@AA-mm6wu Of course he liked long walks on the beach! That’s where he picked up James and Simon!
As I understand it, he looked like he was Swedish.
Doesn’t the Bible itself refute the shroud of Turin? I distinctly remember reading that Jesus was wrapped in strips of linen…strips being plural? Not one big body length single strip?
They were were atomically woven together at the Rez. Come on bro YHWH is a master weaver.
it's a mistranslation, it should say shroud,
and did in the original, before NASA got their greedy paws on it
@@Merrick I thought it was The Illuminati, not NASA.
I'm an atheist, but isn't there also the Sudarium of Oviedo?
@@LM-jz9vh Which is also a bit of art.
I just read that Gibson was appearing on Rogan's show... while his house was burning down?
"Oh Lord, why will you not send us a sign?"
The curse of fire strikes again! 😅
Iirc the shroud survived fire two or three times in its recorded history. I have always taken it as a sign that god wanted to get rid of it.
Jim Caveizal claimed to have been struck by lightning while filming Mel's movie The Passion. Specifically, while hanging on a cross. Having since learned more about them, assuming such a wild claim is true, I can honestly say the fact that they took it as a sign is unsurprising - the specific sign they chose to take it as though, is just...hilarious.
To be fair I don't know if Jim CLaizve isn't like that _because_ he took a bolt to the brain-matter.
Even back when I was still a Christian, I always thought it was obvious the Shroud was a fake.
You still have time to come back
The propaganda is effective only when you stifle critical thought. This isn't philosophy this is a science claim, if there is a method delivery to even character the totals necessary from different tests/procedures, then it's plausible it is natural( it makes sense on both sides of the argument - there is only natural no matter how you wish to extend science further- and miracles must be traceable otherwise science( an on going, and never complete studying of nature) will be silent to the how and especially specifically when or who.
@@IndianaJones44 You still have time to become rational
@@IndianaJones44 the Bible says its impossible to return once you left the faith😂😂
@@AtheistRizz-d6y This is a very short life. The next one doesn’t end. Please ask God to sincerely reveal himself to you. You have everything to lose or everything to gain
Because why on Earth would they test their controversial new dating technique on, say, an object of indisputably known age?
They did use artifacts of known age to generate a calibration curve (I think 9 total, which definitely isn't enough especially for a S curve fit). I don't personally know how many more samples are available to use as a validation set.
And the artifacts used were from arid areas not humid areas.
Both Joe and Mel have credibility issues which render their discussion of the Shroud of Turin’s authenticity irrelevant and frankly, laughable.
They absolutely aren’t credible, and I kinda agree. However it doesn’t mean the shroud isn’t real. I’ve read a lot of research from both sides on the shroud, and the more reasonable explanation is that it’s real and its image creation is unexplained. Most likely created by a radiation burst. This dude got it wrong in the video.
So true...
@@pyratellamarecordingstudio1062 Actually, I only said their credibility made their discussion of authenticity irrelevant and laughable. I don’t really have a position on the Shroud. I believe the scholars and scientists are infinitely more qualified than I to opine.
@@egalitarian-rex fair enough
Agreed
Interesting fact about the hair mark: there is absolutely no way that a human body wrapped in a shroud and left in a laying position would have left that sort of imprint. The hair should have been floating. According to Luigi Garlaschelli, who made an accurate replica of the shroud, the face was made by placing a bas-relief under the fabric and painting over it. This explains a strange mark in the neck region that doesn't match any anatomical structure. The rest of the body was painted in the same way, over the body of some guy.
Any artist that works in 3D on computers with 2D textures formed to the 3D surface, knows that the shroud is fake. What you described as the method of creating the shroud is correct.
It really looks like it was pressed lol
I, too used to believe that a whole room full of experts didn't know how to carbon date a piece of cloth. Fortunately, I snapped out of it.
If Mel Gibson told me my golden retriever is a golden retriever I'd be convinced he was a Shitsu. Love your work.
Who knew that Mel is an expert on first century C.E. hairstyles?
and why would Paul tell Christians to keep their hair short if he saw a resurrected Jesus with long hair?
He's just really good at spotting Jews, no matter the time period
@@benroberts2222 That’s what the Peter vs Paul rivalry was about!
@@niceguy191 At least he thinks he is.
The fact that the Shroud of Turin is, well, a shroud is a major piece of evidence against it being authentic. Jewish burial practices at the time did not make use of a single piece of cloth. Rather it was strips of cloth being wrapped around the body. In fact the Gospel of John (19:40) specifically describes Jesus's body being wrapped in strips of cloth.
I'm an atheist, but isn't there also the Sudarium of Oviedo?
@@LM-jz9vh The Sudarium is a cloth from the 500s that has some dark specs on it in no particular pattern. A sample was provided to a lab for testing but the sample was too contaminated by other material to give its proper age. It's about the right size to be a face cloth for a Jewish burial, but otherwise there's nothing differentiating it from any of the thousands of totally really real relics floating around.
@@Nymaz It's hard to find objective, unbiased information on it. A quick Google search brought up the below:
The Sudarium of Oviedo is a bloodstained linen cloth that is believed to have covered Jesus Christ's head after his crucifixion:
Location: Kept in the Cámara Santa of the Cathedral of San Salvador in Oviedo, Spain
Size: Approximately 84 x 53 cm
Appearance: Thin, creased, and yellowed
Stains: Numerous stains, including blood, flower pollen, wax, soot, and fungus
Other features: Covered with aloe, which was used as a preservative in first-century Jewish burials
The Sudarium of Oviedo is also known as the Veil of Oviedo. It is thought to have been made by hand.
Here are some things to know about the Sudarium of Oviedo:
The cloth's bloodstains are believed to match the wounds made by the crown of thorns.
The cloth's bloodstains are believed to be lifeblood, not postmortem blood.
The cloth has been studied by the investigative team EDICES since 1989.
The cloth has been compared to the Shroud of Turin.
EXACTLY! The first clue it is not real is that a real shroud is wrapped AROUND a body. It HAS TO BE wrapped, not laid end to end like a beach towel, to function for the reason a body was shrouded in the first place.
The image on the shroud looks suspiciously like Howard Stern!
Well, at one point in the 90's, he WAS very vocal in telling anyone and everyone that he was "the King of all media!" Maybe he WAS the inspiration for the shroud! See, the lizardmen who mated with human females (and still do!) probably spawned Howard Stern, putting their faith in him as the savior of the world but then, somehow, the lizardmen took a mold of Howard's face and got in their time machine and...🤣😂👽🤖🤡💯
Baba Booey!
😅
The whole "the image was burned on to the shroud" rhetoric is ridiculous, it's just really old painted cloth.
The 1913 Catholic Encyclopedia makes a good point about the current state of the shroud vs the state it was in when it was still new.
"Lastly, the difficulty must be noticed that while the witnesses of the fifteenth and early sixteenth centuries speak of the image as being then so vivid that the blood seemed freshly shed, it is now darkened and hardly recognizable without minute attention. On the supposition that this is an authentic relic dating from the year A.D. 30, why should it have retained its brilliance through countless journeys and changes of climate for fifteen centuries, and then in four centuries more have become almost invisible? On the other hand if it be a fabrication of the fifteenth century this is exactly what we should expect."
Yeah, I always expect religious people to be gullible liars.
Solid argument. If it’s so old why did it look on discovery like fresh blood then look like - hm old dried up blood now. That it be a fabrication is clear to them.
No. Impossible. There has been no pigment or paint ever detected on the image of the body. No acid, no known image creation method. If you want to rely on a 1913 quote from a catholic encyclopedia then just know you’re relying on technology and understanding over a century old. There’s some fascinating scientific research that has been done in the shroud in the last 50 years.
The earliest account of the shroud says it was painted; other medieval accounts say that the image looked like it was made from freshly shed blood, in other words, red. In 1978 what seems to be faint red pigment (some claim blood) is found on the fibers, in 1988, carbon dating places the cloth in between 1260-1390. In 2009 the shroud is reproduced using medieval methods and then artificially aged with an oven and some washing resulting in an image without paint.
@@TheOneCalledSloth nope, none of that is accurate today. No pigment has ever been found. The shroud has never been reproduced accurately. Look into it, it’s fascinating. We can’t even reproduce it with today’s technology. The image is only on a few microfibers of one side of the cloth, not on the other. It can’t be acid then, no pigment found, there’s no reasonable explanation. The 2009 reproduction actually failed these details and others. But headline readers wouldn’t know that. The carbon dating , unfortunately was taken on a corner where it had been repaired, so it’s not accurate. If we could get a new carbon rating in the middle of the shroud where it hadn’t been repaired then we could have real scientific evidence.
Geez, Mel is usually so level headed and analytical 😏
If by that you mean overbearing and blowhard, then I agree. 😉
I don't understand some Christians' need for science to prove them right. Like they don't understand the "I willingly choose to believe this highly improbable series of stories in the hope it works out really well for me after I die, even though it could well be a load of nonsense" part of faith.
It’s a vain attempt at giving the Bible way more credibility than it deserves
That's not a part of faith. The word 'faith' has been much abused by modern English. It doesn't mean 'believing without evidence'; it means 'trusting the promises'. Completely different thing.
🎯 💯⚛️
@ What is it called when you don’t have faith in those who supposedly made these “promises”?
@@egalitarian-rex it's called 'not having faith'?
It ses to me that of you want to argue that a new dating method is superior to existing methods, you should test it on objects of known age, not of objects who's age is contentious.
Idk why people are obsessed about the shroud. It's not in any way verifiable evidence of the biblical claims, and it's definitely not a 2000-year fabric 🤦🏾♂️.
The point is to give the "resurrection" credibility, that Jesus was really in a tomb etc.
Even if the shroud was created during the fourth decade CE, it doesn’t prove it was Jesus. Crucifixion was a common practice of the Romans during that era. Why is there no mention of it in the Bible? Mel didn’t even get the history of William Wallace right in the, otherwise entertaining movie, Braveheart, but we are supposed to trust his expertise on this?
Wait wait wait... Jesus was 6 feet tall? That's huge for the people in the region!
Again, "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." The actual evidence in this case indicates iconography, not a miracle.
Joe Rogan just mimics the Tucker Carlson "Hey I'm just asking questions..." schtick, but tries to conjure an air of credibility for it by performing it, unlike Tucker does, with a mellow delivery.
We are getting dumber by the day.
@@JoeDitzel That would explain Joe Rogan's popularity, as well as the winner of the 2024 US presidential election.
Smh...
It’s so sad to me that people try to make the Shroud of Turin into something it’s not. It’s such a cool piece of art and history on its own.
its 14th century..
Can't agree more... Thanks Dan!
Dan, you da man! I love the way you present your information and have learned a lot.
Who needs scientific rigor when you have personal revelation😂
That any rational person would think that a man from the middle East, in the first century would be 6 feet tall. More like 54. And that there was some particular Hairstyle that men wore in the first century. Most men wore their hair short because of problems with lice, etc. not like 15 century dutch painters that turn Christ into a California surfer dude. 7:28
Gibson lost his fucking mind years ago.
I've never heard a good explanation for the face looking like a photograph. To cover all of the terrain of a face, and show the creases of the lips, eye sockets, and corners of the nose, you'd need to push a flat cloth into those recesses. And then when that cloth is laid flat it is not going to look like the face in the Shroud of Turin, or any kind of recognizable human face. The features should be stretched and distorted the same way continents are on a Mercator projection map.
Usually when I bring this up, proponents of the Shroud say that Jesus radiated some kind of magical energy as he left his body. Which, of course, has no actual supporting evidence.
8:58 "No that's not real - And the fit for this video..." Like a mic drop :D
Brilliant as always Dan, thanks.
A negative image is pretty easy to explain. Dichromatic images consisting of a light colour with a dark colour were fairly common in the medieval period. The pigment of the dark colour fades away over time, as organic pigments are known to do. Instead of a medium-light pigment against a dark pigment, you are left with a medium-light pigment against a lighter background, which looks a lot like a photographic negative.
Thank you so much. I am ashamed I was once a christian and actually believed this "shroud" had to be real as it was claimed that even today, people can't paint a negative image. Love your explanation.
@@johnnehrich9601 No need to be ashamed about personal realization and growth. The fact the the shroud isn't the burial cloth of Christ really doesn't mean the Bible is or isn't "true", however one defines true. It just means that a lot of medieval Europeans were crazy over relics and didn't think critically about them. I suspect it often had more to do with secular status than religious faith.
This is another example of the danger of wanting to believe something to the point you invent justifications. Confirmation bias, no more no less.
There's more evidence of Santa Claus being real than the Shroud of Turin.
Ho! Ho! Ho!
I met santa claus at the mall last year
Those presents under the tree have to be coming from *somewhere*! Do you have a better explanation? Checkmate asantaists!
His interesting claim about how the weave was typical of the 1st century is a common tactic of lots of apologists. They take a known piece of information that refutes their claim, and then lie about it and say it actually supports them, either by lying about what the data actually is, or by lying about its interpretation. More “serious” apologists tend to lie about the interpretation, because it’s too easy to google things these days and find out that the data itself is made up, but it’s pretty easy to say “well that’s just the interpretation of atheist scholars.”
I've seen shroud apologists claim the quality of the weave demonstrates the fact that the cloth was expensive -- i.e. fit for a king -- and rare (hence no other examples found). They will go to any lengths in their desperation to be right.
The more one listens to Joe Rogan, the more one’s brain shrinks.
skibidi toilet> joe rogan
Are they still touting that piece of cloth? It seems there's more than one born every minute.
Thank you for addressing this one!
It shows how much people want something/it to be true, that they'll ignore all the obvious reasons it can't be.
Depends on whether you consider 600 years old to be ancient.
Thanks!
Good rule of thumb: If the ideas are being presented on Rogan then they're complete twaddle.
If this was an available technique in the medieval era, why do we not see other art from the era using this method?
‘They can take our lives, but they’ll never take our freedom to believe absolute codswallop’.
And so many people believe in stuff like this, without questioning.
They are desperate for any kind if physical evidence to support their beliefs, If your faith is in only what you can see and touch, you have no faith at all! "Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen." (Hebrews 11:1)
The shroud is a pretty cool artifact, but pretty clearly fake.
Joe Rogan and Mel Gibson - the cutting edge of archeological research, folks!
It looks goofy as hell
@aahhhhhhhhhhhhh - Yeah, it's pretty consistent with the religious art of the medieval period in terms of depictions of the human form and the wounds.
I meant more about how the fibers are individually colored or dyed and then woven, and not clumped together as if they were slathered with paint.
my hypothesis is that they used a form of rust "dyeing" you have iron items wrapped in vinegar soaked material make sure the material is firmly attached to the metal and keep moist with vinegar for about a week. its a sort of burn, a chemical reaction between the rust and the mild acid.
The only things I hear when I see the face of Mel Gibson are the utterly racist voicemails he left on his ex-wife's phone.
I see him in the South Park parody of his snuff film chasing Kyle down the road :P
The SoT is an excellent candidate for carbon 14 dating. C14 dating says it is Medieval. There is no rational reason to dispute this, unless you think "lying to get money" is a rational reason.
Joe Rogan is what the incurious think curiosity looks like.
The weave pattern on the cloth hadn't been invented by the time Jesus was said to be crucified.
It's a 2D image. A 3D person would have shroud wrapping around face and body and thighs. Like skins for a video game, look at a face before it is applied to the mess.
THANK YOU! It isn't a shroud. A shroud is wrapped AROUND a corpse, with a separate smaller piece for the head, because a body begins to decompose. It attracts maggots, smells (reeks), and oozes liquids. Nowadays, we don't tend to see such extreme outputs because of embalming.
On the other hand, before embalming, medical science was not always accurate about death actually occurring. People pronounced "dead" came back to life with enough frequency (or at least tales of this), that people were terrified of being buried alive. So traditionally people held a wake for about three days, when these effects of decomposition became unmistakable, to literally see if the person would WAKE up.
PS - one of the gospels actually describes Jesus's shroud as being in two pieces, with the second the wrapping for the head.
Why are people so scared of it being real
LOL ! We know why Dan is scared. . . . . .
The shroud isn't even anatomically correct. It lacks the top of the head. It goes from the face on one side to the back of the head after the fold.
Exactly. I like to point this out as the most obvious proof that it's fake. Unfortunately, people will just ignore this and change the subject when it's pointed out in a debate.
while I agree the Shroud is clearly medieval artwork I think this is a poor objection. The preferred hypothesis among Shroudies is that Jesus' image was made like a photograph on each side of the cloth (using neutron radiation hocus pocus) which, while a bad explanation overall, does explain this aspect of the appearance. They do not think it's a giant sweat stain.
@@benroberts2222 That doesn't solve the problem. The claim is that the shroud was wrapped around the body when the image was created. But there is no way for it to wrap around the body without some fabric passing over the top of the head. It would be impossible for the image to line up with the front and back of a 3 dimensional body without allowance for it passing over the head.
@dwaneanderson8039 their explanation for how it happened was radiation being emitted in straight lines, both in the forward and backward direction. No image of the top of the head would be there because radiation wasn't being emitted in the "up" direction, from the body's prone perspective. Just ask Otangelo.
Yes it's incredibly ad hoc, silly, and unnecessary (since the mechanism is "God wanted it to be that way" and God doesn't need special radiation to put an image on a cloth) but those are different objections.
@@benroberts2222 It doesn't matter if there is no image of the top of the head. There has to be fabric passing over the head anyway between the front and back even if it has no image on it. Otherwise, you don't have enough fabric to line up the images of the front and back with the body.
The Tiberian coin thing is very unlikely because we have no evidence of coins with Tiberius' head circulating in Jesus' lifetime in Judea.
I read somewhere that his house was burning in LA while he was with JR.
is there evidence of this weave in ancient roman times in the area where Jesus lived?
ChatGPT said:
Yes, there is evidence of advanced weaving techniques, including patterns similar to the 3:1 herringbone weave, in regions where Jesus lived during Roman times (1st century CE), specifically in Judea and the broader Levant. While direct examples of the 3:1 herringbone weave are scarce, here’s what we know about the textile practices in this area:The 3:1 herringbone weave is an ancient textile technique. The earliest confirmed historical evidence of this weave dates to the Iron Age, specifically around the 6th-7th century BCE. This is evidenced by textiles found in archaeological sites such as Hallstatt in Austria, which was a significant center of the Hallstatt culture. At Hallstatt, fragments of textiles employing herringbone patterns were discovered, demonstrating advanced weaving techniques for the period. These textiles were likely produced on vertical looms, showcasing the skill and sophistication of early European weavers.
so maybe the weave style isn't really contraindicative.
If you say "Shroud of Turin" 3 times, Otangelo appears.
😂
Carbon dated to be about 700 years old.
When people need to believe, they will.
When they don’t need, they’ll stop the believing.
At the root: fear. Always fear.
A life lived in fear is a life half lived, and that half is filled with stories.
I'm fairly familiar with WAXS , the technique mentioned. There are no publications using it for dating. Those guys introduce the technique and a bunch of assumptions and test a single fabric, the shroud. It smells BS, until someone tests a bunch of ancient fabrics.
I think they got a couple of papers published in minor journals (this allowed the method to fly under the radar of both people who know the technique and textiles.) However, that said I have a lot of issues with the method. The textiles they used were all from arid regions and assuming that the shroud is older than 700 years, it spent at least 700 years in humid climates of France and northern Italy. The other issue I have is, they didn't test using textiles of the same ages but with different amounts of wear.
"now I've never checked that", but you are happy sharing it on one of your largest platforms to date, Mel?
I love Dan's - _"no that's not real and the fit..."_
I guess Mel Gibson played himself in Lethal Weapon, a suicidal maniac that only does the right thing entirely by accident.
And getting more ancient every day. Just wait it'll be ancient in no time.
Rogue and Gambit forever, Rogan/Gibson never.
How did they make this thing. Seems hard to reproduce
The things is, a shroud would wrap around a body. Any image produced when draped in this fashion would be distorted if the fabric were presented to the viewer flat. But the image we see on the fabric presented flat shows an undistorted image of a human likeness.
It’s a King Arthur forgery! 🤣
Excellent piece. Very well presented and accurate.
Dan, I think the whole "cannot cross your hands and cover your groin without lifting your elbows off the ground " is kinda covered by Rigor Mortis! Especially if the back and knees bowed slightly at the time of death. Which would happen if you died nailed to a cross.
I can't believe that the "-what is your source, bro?" - I saw it in a dream" meme became real
The shroud is a medieval prop.
Did not the Bishop of Troyes say it was a forgery by the Bishop of Troyes Pierre d’Arcis in 1389?
It should always be mentioned that the radiocarbon dating studies has been repeated dozens of times by independent labs, using multiple techniques and multiple isotopes, and they all date the Shroud of Turin to approximately 1320 CE. That's when the fabric was manufactured. The scientific consensus on this isn't vague or up in the air. They have a firm date of 1320 CE.
I'd rather believe the bible spoof "Wholly Moses" before I'd believe any apologist or Mel Gibson.
Interesting history: A 3-D rendition of the shroud is on display in the Catholic Chapel at the US Air Force Academy in Colorado Springs CO. This is because one of the professors was obsessed with the shroud and commissioned a young artist, who happened to be a member of my church in Denver, to create a cardboard model of the 3-D image which was then encased with fiber glass and put on display in the chapel. This was 1979 I believe.
Good to see Dan refuting the claims made by Mel Gibson, a religious wack job and Joe Rogan who seems to believe utterly whomever sits in front of him.
Great video. Would be good if you can make a video about the Virgin of Guadalupe miracle.
As an Australian, may I say thank you for taking Mel Gibson. You can go ahead and keep him. Same with old Uncle Murdoch.
And Ken Ham, Nicholas Adamopoulos (aka Nick Adams), and "Banana Man"...I'm not sure of his name, but he sits there and spouts how a banana proves God, without realising that what he's holding is the product of human selective breeding to make the wild bananas actually edible :P
...did I hear you say, "comical incorrect?" Oh no, you said, "anatomically incorrect." 😜
I'd love if you did a video on the Ossuary of James and the familial tomb discovered in Israel. Thanks for the vids!
Mel had the same hairstyle as Shroud Jesus in Lethal Weapon and Letal Weapon 2.
It is really amazing how many people, even today, still use the Shroud of Turin as 'it was Jesus'.
Mel Gibson? A scholar? No way. I would not give one red cent for his opinion.