Podcasts about turin shroud

We deep-dive into the evidence for the Shroud of Turin's authenticity. Could this really be the burial cloth of Jesus?

The Fourth Mind is the first book ever to explore the anatomy, brains, genetics, beliefs and capabilities of the unknown entities the author refers to as "the visitors." He maintains that they have a set of abilities he describes as a "fourth mind" that include such powers as telepathy, levitation, the ability to move heavy objects without machinery, and many others.He then shows that there is a rich store of evidence that mankind once possessed these same powers, and that hidden knowledge of them has persisted into the 20th century.To explore why we lost them and how we can regain them, he takes a dive into the chaotic end of the last ice age when mass extinctions devastated the planet and mankind endured a catastrophe so terrible that it has buried by traumatic amnesia. He shows how it resulted in our loss of these powers, and describes how a forgotten event involving our visitors that took place in 1996 in Brazil holds the key to our recovery of them.There has never been another book like The Fourth Mind. It marks the beginning of a new way of thinking about who and what we are, and points toward the re-empowerment of mankind as a truly cosmic species.The Fourth Mind will be on sale as a Kindle on January 15, 2025, and as a softcover, hardcover and audiobook shortly thereafter.BioI started my writing career with the Wolfen in 1979. There have followed since over 40 books during a long writing lifetime. My books the Wolfen, the Hunger, Communion and Superstorm have all been made into films (Superstorm as the Day After Tomorrow). My series Alien Hunter was a TV series called Hunters on the SyFy Channel.In 1985 I had an experience of close encounter that frightened and confused me. I was injured by it but still could not believe that it had been a physical experience. It was just too strange. Still, I was very curious and began going out into the woods at night from our little upstate New York cabin to try to somehow re-engage. This worked, and the rest of my life began. I have become deeply engaged with the entities I call "the visitors" in Communion and my follow-on books, the latest of which is The Fourth Mind.In March of 2021, I published Jesus: A New Vision, which is a look at the life of Jesus and what happened afterward. As the scientific evidence that the Turin Shroud really is a very unusual object has grown, it seems to me that a new look at Jesus, seeing him neither as a god distant from us or as an ordinary man was essential to deepening our understanding of what his teaching means, and what his life really was.I have a big website, Unknowncountry.com, which concentrates on the credible edge of science and reality. It is the home of my podcast, Dreamland and offers extensive social media platforms both for subscribers and non-subscribers.Some of my books have been eerily predictive. Notable among these are Nature's End, published in 1987, which predicts the California and Amazon fires and warns about drought in the US midwest.Then there was the Superstorm, which predicted that climate change would be much more sudden and violent than was thought in 1999 when it was published. This has proved to be true.In 2015, my wife Anne died. Within hours, even before anybody outside of my immediate family knew what had happened, friends began calling to say that they were hearing her tell them to phone me. As this continued, it became all but indisputable to me that she really was still present. Our relationship grew into a book called Afterlife Revolution, which afterlife expert Dr. Gary Schwartz called one of the most convincing stories of afterlife communication ever written. (He wrote a foreword for the book)In 1970, Anne and I began a meditative practice we learned in the Gurdjieff Foundation in New York. This organization was created by Armenian teacher and philosopher Georges Gurdjieff, and is based on the idea that man is not fully conscious, but that there are methods that can change this.When the visitors entered my life in 1985, they used the same teaching techniques that I was familiar with from my Gurdjieff Work. So I work with them, also. I have been active in my Foundation work now for more than 50 years, 30 of which I have also worked with the visitors.Although I am pretty much an outcast and a pariah when it comes to the mainstream, I lead a blessed life and consider myself the luckiest of the lucky.https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0DR3WKB3Mhttps://www.unknowncountry.com/ https://www.pastliveshypnosis.co.uk/https://www.patreon.com/alienufopodcast

The Fourth Mind is the first book ever to explore the anatomy, brains, genetics, beliefs and capabilities of the unknown entities the author refers to as "the visitors." He maintains that they have a set of abilities he describes as a "fourth mind" that include such powers as telepathy, levitation, the ability to move heavy objects without machinery, and many others.He then shows that there is a rich store of evidence that mankind once possessed these same powers, and that hidden knowledge of them has persisted into the 20th century.To explore why we lost them and how we can regain them, he takes a dive into the chaotic end of the last ice age when mass extinctions devastated the planet and mankind endured a catastrophe so terrible that it has buried by traumatic amnesia. He shows how it resulted in our loss of these powers, and describes how a forgotten event involving our visitors that took place in 1996 in Brazil holds the key to our recovery of them.There has never been another book like The Fourth Mind. It marks the beginning of a new way of thinking about who and what we are, and points toward the re-empowerment of mankind as a truly cosmic species.The Fourth Mind will be on sale as a Kindle on January 15, 2025, and as a softcover, hardcover and audiobook shortly thereafter.BioI started my writing career with the Wolfen in 1979. There have followed since over 40 books during a long writing lifetime. My books the Wolfen, the Hunger, Communion and Superstorm have all been made into films (Superstorm as the Day After Tomorrow). My series Alien Hunter was a TV series called Hunters on the SyFy Channel.In 1985 I had an experience of close encounter that frightened and confused me. I was injured by it but still could not believe that it had been a physical experience. It was just too strange. Still, I was very curious and began going out into the woods at night from our little upstate New York cabin to try to somehow re-engage. This worked, and the rest of my life began. I have become deeply engaged with the entities I call "the visitors" in Communion and my follow-on books, the latest of which is The Fourth Mind.In March of 2021, I published Jesus: A New Vision, which is a look at the life of Jesus and what happened afterward. As the scientific evidence that the Turin Shroud really is a very unusual object has grown, it seems to me that a new look at Jesus, seeing him neither as a god distant from us or as an ordinary man was essential to deepening our understanding of what his teaching means, and what his life really was.I have a big website, Unknowncountry.com, which concentrates on the credible edge of science and reality. It is the home of my podcast, Dreamland and offers extensive social media platforms both for subscribers and non-subscribers.Some of my books have been eerily predictive. Notable among these are Nature's End, published in 1987, which predicts the California and Amazon fires and warns about drought in the US midwest.Then there was the Superstorm, which predicted that climate change would be much more sudden and violent than was thought in 1999 when it was published. This has proved to be true.In 2015, my wife Anne died. Within hours, even before anybody outside of my immediate family knew what had happened, friends began calling to say that they were hearing her tell them to phone me. As this continued, it became all but indisputable to me that she really was still present. Our relationship grew into a book called Afterlife Revolution, which afterlife expert Dr. Gary Schwartz called one of the most convincing stories of afterlife communication ever written. (He wrote a foreword for the book)In 1970, Anne and I began a meditative practice we learned in the Gurdjieff Foundation in New York. This organization was created by Armenian teacher and philosopher Georges Gurdjieff, and is based on the idea that man is not fully conscious, but that there are methods that can change this.When the visitors entered my life in 1985, they used the same teaching techniques that I was familiar with from my Gurdjieff Work. So I work with them, also. I have been active in my Foundation work now for more than 50 years, 30 of which I have also worked with the visitors.Although I am pretty much an outcast and a pariah when it comes to the mainstream, I lead a blessed life and consider myself the luckiest of the lucky.https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0DR3WKB3Mhttps://www.unknowncountry.com/ https://www.pastliveshypnosis.co.uk/https://www.patreon.com/alienufopodcast

Topic I: Addressing Allegations: Did the Promised Messiah Use Inappropriate Language In His Writings? Guests: Imam Ataul Mujeeb Rashid Imam Zafir Mahmood Malik Imam Farhan Iqbal (Pre record) Topic II: Latest Discovery Over The Turin Shroud Guests: Guest 1: Arif Khan Sahib Guest 2: Michael Kowalski Producer(s): Fatima Zunehra Danayal, Malakoot Afaq Trainee / Assistant Trainee Producer(s): Lead Producer: Nergis Nasir Researchers: Basma Amber Latif & Aalia Qureshi & Haala & Fareha Sohail Suri Lead Presenter: Mb Touqeer Tanvir Co-Presenters: Qayum Rashid

Is Jimi Hendrix still rocking from beyond the grave? Did Robert Oppenheimer uncover a secret so big it could rewrite history? A breakthrough discovery could prove the Turin Shroud is real—are we ready for the truth? The Paranormal 60 News Crew is LIVE and here for your listening pleasure. Dave, Chachi, Sweet T and The Colonel return to reveal - An ancient mystery lies deep beneath Lake Michigan—what dark secrets does it hold? And a swarm of asteroids is headed for Earth... could this be our Doomsday? PLUS - ParaTunes! And YOUR questions! Paranormal Insider Edition - The Paranormal 60 News Keep up with Dave's Paranormal 360 Radio Show on WCCO Radio here: https://www.darknessradio.com/the-paranormal-360 Order Dave's book here: https://bit.ly/TheaterOfTheMind SUPPORT THE ADVERTISERS THAT SUPPORT THIS SHOW Mythical Meats - To grab the taste sensation sweeping the nation and save 10% go here and use code P60 at check out,  https://shop.mythicalmeats.com/ Mint Mobile - To get your new wireless plan for just15 bucks a month, and get the plan shipped to your door for FREE, go to www.MintMobile.com/P60 Haunted Magazine - https://bit.ly/hauntedmagazine Tarot Readings by Winnie - www.darknessradio.com/love-lotus-tarot SHOW YOUR STATUS AS A LOYAL DARKLING! Grab Your Paranormal 60 Gear At -https://paranormal60swagshop.com/ TRAVEL WITH DAVE - www.DarknessEvents.com SUBSCRIBE TO OUR CHANNEL HERE - https://bit.ly/3ySmSf8 -------------------------------------------------------------------------- DAVE'S LINKS X: @TheDaveSchrader IG: @OfficialDaveSchrader IG: @officialparanormal60 WEBSITE: http://www.Paranormal60.com GREG'S LINKS FB: @greghlawson IG: @greghlawson X: @Gruntdiver Greg's website - www.theparanormaldetective.com Order Greg's Books here: https://amzn.to/45VjJG0  TRESSA'S LINKS https://linktr.ee/tressa.slater PLEASE GIVE THIS SHOW A 5 STAR RATING AND REVIEW! Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

In this episode of Quah (Q & A), Sal, Adam & Justin coach four Pump Heads via Zoom. Mind Pump Fit Tip: The smartest way to diet to get lean effectively and efficiently as possible. (2:34) Tech is NOT going to solve the obesity epidemic. (14:26) There is truly an app for everything! (21:43) Ukraine robot dogs. (26:32) The ULTIMATE home security. (28:23) Sal's incredible Christian worship concert experience. (31:15) Justin's trip to Kula Sports Performance. (34:41) The 1-2 punch gut/skin axis. (38:48) Would you consider this? (43:06) The controversy surrounding the Shroud of Turin. (47:28) When you see a black widow for the first time. (51:17) It's a weird time for potential homeowners. (52:44) RFK Jr. endorsing Donald Trump. (58:59) Shout out to Kula Sports Performance! (1:02:21) #ListenerLive question #1 – Why am I not losing weight on Semaglutide? (1:03:45) #ListenerLive question #2 – Any advice on how to do a pull-up? (1:13:52) #ListenerLive question #3 – Is it possible to run and be strong and lean? (1:23:54) #ListenerLive question #4 – How can I remedy a trap imbalance due to weakness in my rotator cuff? (1:38:57) Related Links/Products Mentioned Ask a question to Mind Pump, live! Email: live@mindpumpmedia.com Visit Seed for an exclusive offer for Mind Pump listeners! **Promo code 25MINDPUMP at checkout for 25% off your first month's supply of Seed's DS-01® Daily Synbiotic** Visit Caldera Lab for an exclusive offer for Mind Pump listeners! **Promo code MINDPUMP at checkout for 20% off your first order of their best products ** September Promotion: MAPS Starter | Starter Bundle 50% off! ** Code SEPTEMBER50 at checkout ** Mind Pump #1522: How to Stay Consistent With Your Diet & Workout Mind Pump #1572: Is Tonal Worth the Money? With Aly Orady Reflect Orbital Ukraine deploys $9K robot dogs vs. Russia with plans to use them as ‘kamikazes' on the front lines Sublethal Remote Gun Kula Sports Performance Mind Pump #2255: The Smart Way to Improve Speed, Power, & Performance With Brian Kula Mushroom coffins that biodegrade in 45 days will be available in US AI Uses the Turin Shroud to Reveal What Jesus ‘Might Have Looked Like' California Moves Toward Zero-Down-Payment Mortgages for Migrants Visit MASSZYMES by biOptimizers for an exclusive offer for Mind Pump listeners! **Promo code MINDPUMP10 at checkout** Mind Pump #2410: How to Maximize Fat Loss & Preserve Muscle on GLP-1s (Introducing MAPS GLP-1) The RIGHT WAY To Do More Pull-Ups (Make Them EASY!) How to do a Scapula pull up correctly Mind Pump Fitness Coaching Course Personal Trainer Growth Secrets | Powered by Mind Pump Becoming a Supple Leopard 2nd Edition: The Ultimate Guide to Resolving Pain, Preventing Injury, and Optimizing Athletic Performance Mind Pump #1790: The Secret to an Attractive & Functional Body Mind Pump #1872: Eight Benefits of Lifting With Light Weight Mind Pump Podcast – YouTube Mind Pump Free Resources People Mentioned Mike Matthews (@muscleforlifefitness) Instagram Brian Kula (@kulasportsperformance) Instagram Christopher M. Naghibi (@chrisnaghibi) Instagram Mind Pump Fitness Coaching (@mindpumptrainers) Instagram

The Shroud of Turin may be the most studied artifact in human history. This 14-foot cloth is claimed by many to be the burial cloth of Jesus Christ, with his image imprinted on the cloth from the resurrection. A 1988 radiocarbon test dated the shroud to the 14th century, but two new tests open the door to a date in the first century. Can we know if this is truly the burial cloth of Jesus? What difference would it make?  Resources: "The Shroud of Turin and Its Significance for Biblical Studies" - Gary Habermas, JETS "Father Brown Fakes the Shroud" - N. D. Wilson, Books and Culture  "X-Ray Dating of a Turin Shroud's Linen Sample" - Liberato de Caro, Heritage 

This week's episode was recorded before the scrapping of FA Cup replays was announced, so instead please enjoy Nick and Chris discussing medieval punishments instead. And, of course, some Oldham shite. —————————————— If you would like to support the podcast, you can do so by subscribing to our offering at anotherslice.com/famousslopingpitch.  For just £5 a month you'll get an ad-free version of the podcast every week PLUS fortnightly bonus episodes where we delve into seasons past and review them.  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

In this episode, we continue our deep dive into one of the most intriguing and controversial relics, the Shroud of Turin. Building on our previous discussion of the shroud's historical journey, today we shift our focus to its scientific aspects. If you haven't listened to the first part of this exploration, I highly recommend going back for a complete understanding.Our discussion will navigate through various scientific analyses and archaeological contexts to answer a pivotal question: Could the Shroud of Turin authentically date back to the first century? We'll explore the burial customs of the Second Temple period, the weave patterns of ancient textiles, and modern scientific methods like carbon dating and pollen analysis.Special thanks to our Patreon supporters, members portal subscribers, and APN supporters whose contributions enrich our exploration of these mysterious topics. Your support keeps our investigations thorough and grounded.As always, you can find additional resources, source citations, and contact information on our website at http://diggingupancientaliens.com. If you enjoy the podcast, please consider leaving us a five-star review—it really helps!Now, let's dig into the science and controversies surrounding the Shroud of Turin.In this episode: Summary 01:58 Archaeology of Jewish Burial Tradition 3:58 Can a crucified person be buried? 7:58 Is the Turin Shroud of the correct weave pattern? 17:28 Numismatic evidence 25:54 C14 dating the Shroud of Turin 30:12 Pollen on the Shroud 37:26 How was the Turin Shroud made? 40:22Links: Episode page Website Email Facebook Twitter Instagram TikTok YouTubeSupport the show: Patreon Become a APN memberMusicThe intro music is Lily of the woods by Sandra Marteleur, and the outro is named “Folie hatt” by Trallskruv.ArchPodNet APN Website: https://www.archpodnet.com APN on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/archpodnet APN on Twitter: https://www.twitter.com/archpodnet APN on Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/archpodnet Tee Public StoreAffiliates Motion: https://www.archpodnet.com/motion Liquid I.V.Ready to shop better hydration, use my special link https://zen.ai/thearchaeologypodnetworkfeed to save 20% off anything you order.

In this episode, we continue our deep dive into one of the most intriguing and controversial relics, the Shroud of Turin. Building on our previous discussion of the shroud's historical journey, today we shift our focus to its scientific aspects. If you haven't listened to the first part of this exploration, I highly recommend going back for a complete understanding.Our discussion will navigate through various scientific analyses and archaeological contexts to answer a pivotal question: Could the Shroud of Turin authentically date back to the first century? We'll explore the burial customs of the Second Temple period, the weave patterns of ancient textiles, and modern scientific methods like carbon dating and pollen analysis.Special thanks to our Patreon supporters and members portal subscribers, whose contributions enrich our exploration of these mysterious topics. Your support keeps our investigations thorough and grounded.As always, you can find additional resources, source citations, and contact information on our website at diggingupancientaliens.com. If you enjoy the podcast, please consider leaving us a five-star review—it really helps!In "Digging Up Ancient Aliens," we explore the fascinating intersections of alternative history, archaeology, and the claims surrounding ancient alien theories in popular media. I'm your host, Fredrik, guiding you through the world of pseudo-archaeology.Now, let's dig into the science and controversies surrounding the Shroud of Turin.Contact:Website: https://diggingupancientaliens.comEmail: fredrik@diggingupancientaliens.comFacebook: facebook.com/Digging-up-Ancient-Aliens-108173641647111/Twitter: twitter.com/DUAncientAliensInstagram: instagram.com/digging_up_ancient_aliens/TikTok: tiktok.com/@digging_up_ancient_alienStore: https://diggingupancientaliens.com/merchBecome a supporter! Sign up for Patreon or membership here: https://diggingupancientaliens.com/support Support the show!We have a members portal and a Patreon; both have the same levels and bonuses. Join Patreon hereMember Portal MusicThe intro music is Lily of the woods by Sandra Marteleur, and

Have you discerned your vocation? In this episode of the Parousia Podcast, Charbel Raish talks to Mike Creavey, creator of the Catholic Podcast The Gracious Guest, teacher and author about his faith journey and his current projects. Mike's website: https://www.thegraciousguest.org/ The Gracious Guest YouTube channel: https://www.youtube.com/TheGraciousGuest Mike's book "Return of the Lord" on Amazon: https://a.co/d/7R2X7fB Mike's Homeschool Connections courses: https://homeschoolconnections.com/instructors/mike-creavey-ma/ SQPN podcasts link (ex. Secrets of Star Wars): https://sqpn.com/podcasts/ Official Shroud of Turin website: https://shroud.com/ British Society for the Turin Shroud: https://bstsnewsletter.com/ Fr Carlos Martin's "The Exorcist Files": https://www.exorcistfiles.tv/ ------------------------------ Join the Parousia mailing list at https://www.parousiamedia.com/mailing... Parousia is committed to proclaiming the fullness of truth! If you wish to help us in our mission with a donation please visit our website here ------------------------------ https://www.parousiamedia.com/donate/ to learn ways that you can contribute.

In our upcoming episode, we have the pleasure of welcoming Mark Rivera, a retired physicist with a penchant for unraveling mysteries. Currently residing in the tranquil landscapes of rural Hawaii, Mark's journey through the realms of optical physics, optimization, image processing, and art has been nothing short of fascinating.Mark's inquisitive mind was piqued a decade ago when he chanced upon a History Channel program about the Turin Shroud. Intrigued by this ancient enigma, he embarked on a journey to unravel its secrets. Mark's unique approach involves a blend of image processing and digital art techniques, allowing him to delve deep into the Shroud's mysteries.One of Mark's notable endeavors includes a paper detailing his latest attempts at reconstructing the face depicted on the Shroud. Join us as we explore his innovative and artistic pursuit to unmask the Shroud's secrets and gain fresh insights into this timeless relic.Subscribe to our podcast for more insightful interviews and engaging discussions on faith, history, and the intriguing mysteries of the Shroud of Turin.Want to learn more about author Guy R. Powell? Check out the socials below:Website: www.guypowell.comInstagram: @guy.r.powellFacebook: @AHistoryOfTheShroudOfTurinBook Link: https://www.amazon.com/Only-Witness-H...Connect today to unlock the mysteries of the Shroud of Turin.

Did the prestigious British scientific journal “Nature” compromise its usual acceptance criteria when publishing the 1988 Shroud radiocarbon test report in February 1989? Was the decision to publish motivated by editorial bias? Michael Kowalski, author and British Society for the Turin Shroud Newsletter editor, joins me to discuss. LINKS/RESOURCES: – Michael Kowalski's new book “The Shroud of Christ: Evidence of a 2,000 Year Antiquity”:  https://a.co/d/epzsZPN – Nature's original Shroud radiocarbon dating report (Feb. 16, 1989):  https://www.nature.com/articles/337611a0 … you can get the whole article for free here on the official Shroud website:  https://www.shroud.com/nature.htm – Colin J. Humphrey's author page on Amazon:  https://www.amazon.com/stores/author/B004WVO8II/allbooks?ingress=0&visitId=9148d286-8a49-4703-954d-f59bf3eb9ba8 – Wikipedia entry on John Maddox (editor of Nature at the time of the radiocarbon dating):  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Maddox – Wikipedia entry on James Randi:  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Randi – Nature's coverage of Dr. Benveniste's “high-dilution” experiment(s):  https://www.nature.com/articles/334287a0?error=cookies_not_supported&code=e6379625-c4dc-4334-bb00-abe09e956028 – Joe Marino links on the carbon dating:    o “The 1988 C-14 Dating Of The Shroud of Turin: A Stunning Exposé” book:  https://a.co/d/ajjmttV    o “The Perennial Problem of Dishonesty in Science. Has it Occurred in Research on the Turin Shroud?”:  https://www.academia.edu/98709771/The_Perennial_Problem_of_Dishonesty_in_Science_Has_it_Occurred_in_Research_on_the_Turin_Shroud ================== To find more faith-enriching content than you'll know what to do with and to contact Mike Creavey, be sure to visit https://thegraciousguest.org  

It's here! - The Unexplained Live 2023 - with Marella. You loved last year's cruise in the Mediterranean - this year we have more fabulous locations and spellbinding Guest Speakers. From October 22nd we cruise on the Marella Discovery from Florida up the East Coast of the US and on to Canada - visiting places including Newport Rhode Island, Portland, Boston - and Sydney and Halifax, Nova Scotia. Our Guest Speakers for you to see, hear and meet are Andrea Perron from "The Conjuring" marking that movie's 10th Anniversary (joining us for the day in Boston), superb Dr David Whitehouse - author and astronomer, David Rolfe - who made the world famous film about the Turin Shroud and acclaimed author/broadcaster/researcher Malcolm Robinson. *Plus one more Speaker to be confirmed. Full details and dates are here - (*REMEMBER TO USE THE SPECIAL BOOKING CODE "PODCAST 100" for a £100 discount per booking - valid till September 30th) www.tui.co.uk/destinations/info/east-coast-adventure-entertainment See you at sea!!

Numbers 6:25-26 reads: “May the LORD make His face shine on you and be gracious to you; may the LORD lift up His countenance on you and give you peace.” If the Shroud of Turin is authentic, the face we see there is precisely that face! What are some significant takeaways for us all if that is the case? Brenda Benton and Pam Moon join us all the way from the UK to explore! LINKS/RESOURCES: – British Shroud of Turin Exhibition website:  http://www.shroudofturinexhibition.com/Shroud_of_Turin_exhibition/Home.html – The British Society for the Turin Shroud's newsletter:  https://bstsnewsletter.com – BSTS Facebook page:  https://www.facebook.com/BSTSNews – New David Rolfe film "Who Can He Be?: A Quest for Justice": https://www.whocanhebe.com ================== To find more faith-enriching content than you'll know what to do with and to contact Mike Creavey, be sure to visit https://thegraciousguest.org

Film-maker and researcher David Rolfe has spent 45 years investigating the mystery of the Turin Shroud - claimed to be the burial cloth of Christ. This is a new and extended conversation about the research to date and the many stories around that research. We'll also discuss David's "million dollar challenge".

Might the Shroud of Turin in fact be the “vessel” with which Joseph of Arimathea caught Christ's blood? Could the Shroud of Turin, the Holy Grail, and Veronica's Veil be telling the same story? Historian Justin Robinson takes us on a whirlwind adventure of discovery that you will not want to miss! LINKS/RESOURCES: - For further details, check out Russ Breault's fascinating interview on this topic with Dr. Dan Scavone - https://youtu.be/HS5rpAKPXlA - Justin's blog The Coins & History Foundation - https://coinsandhistoryfoundation.org/author/justinrobinsonlmo/ - British Society for the Turin Shroud's newsletter - http://www.bstsnewsletter.com/ - Shroud of Turin Education and Research Association, Inc.:  https://www.shroud.com/stera.htm - Coin News magazine: https://www.isubscribe.co.uk/Coin-News-Magazine-Subscription.cfm ================== To find more faith-enriching content than you'll know what to do with and to contact Mike Creavey, be sure to visit https://thegraciousguest.org

Born in Nashville, Tennessee, William Meacham was educated at Tulane University in New Orleans, the Sorbonne in Paris and the Gregorian University of Rome. He has lived in Hong Kong since 1970, first as a short term United Methodist missionary teaching English, later holding positions as an archaeologist at the Hong Kong Museum of History and the Christian Study Centre on Chinese Religion and Culture. He was Editor of the Hong Kong Archaeological Society 1973-85 and Chairman 1985-96. From 1980 to 2012 he was Honorary Research Fellow at the Centre of Asian Studies, HKU. Since 2012 he has worked on various research projects and published several books. William Meacham is an archaeologist who has studied Hong Kong and adjacent regions. He has written or edited 10 books on archaeology (including The Archaeology of Hong Kong published in 2008 by the University of Hong Kong Press) as well as books on English teaching and other subjects. In 2005 he self-published The Rape of the Turin Shroud which details serious errors in the Shroud's study and conservation. From 2012 to 2015 he conducted an archaeological and document search for the long-lostSubscribe to Spotify or Apple Podcasts to listen each week. New episodes are uploaded every Thursday-Friday.Want to learn more about author Guy R. Powell? Check out the socials below:Website: www.guypowell.comInstagram: @guy.r.powellFacebook: @AHistoryOfTheShroudOfTurinEmail List: https://guypowell.us6.list-manage.com...Connect today to unlock the mysteries of the Shroud of Turin.

Continued from Episode 27..The Shroud of Turin has been subject of experiments through years, yet opinion is still inconclusive. Is it a hoax, a masterpiece, miracle, or something more?In Part 2 we explore the current church's attitude toward the topic of the Shroud, and the history of relics--along with it's contradictions.*******The Shroud of Turin is traditionally believed to be the burial cloth in which the body of Jesus Christ was wrapped after his death almost 2,000 years ago. Even after decades of numerous scientific studies, the researchers could neither endorse nor reject the linen's connection with Jesus Christ. (so goes the general conversation regarding the shroud's appeal throught all these years)......SOURCES:https://www.shroud.com/https://owwlogy.com/shroud-of-turin-and-intruiging-mystery/https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/1556-4029.13867https://sta2.org/church/the-shroud/https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holy_Prepuce#cite_note-Farley-6https://www.upra.orghttps://www.nature.com/articles/srep14484Uncovering the sources of DNA found on the Turin Shroud:https://www.livescience.com/63093-shroud-of-turin-is-fake-bloodstains.htmlhttps://sta2.org/church/school/https://reasontobelieve.com.au/eucharistic-miracle/https://www.science.org/content/article/researchers-hung-men-cross-and-added-blood-bid-prove-turin-shroud-real------------Please SUBSCRIBE and Rate!INSTAGRAM : itgotweird.podcastEMAIL: itgotweird.podcast@gmail.comSEND US YOUR STORIES, COMMENTS OR REQUESTS!https://redcircle.com/shows/and-then-it-got-weird I am accepting donations to help cover hosting, and other pod costs. If you wish to chip in, here:https://www.patreon.com/itgotweirdpodhttps://ko-fi.com/itgotweirdpodcast

The Shroud of Turin has been subject of experiments through years, yet opinion is still inconclusive. Is it a hoax, a masterpiece, miracle, or something more? *******The Shroud of Turin is traditionally believed to be the burial cloth in which the body of Jesus Christ was wrapped after his death almost 2,000 years ago. Even after decades of numerous scientific studies, the researchers could neither endorse nor reject the linen's connection with Jesus Christ. (so goes the general conversation regarding the shroud's appeal throught all these years). .....SOURCES:https://www.shroud.com/https://owwlogy.com/shroud-of-turin-and-intruiging-mystery/https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/1556-4029.13867https://sta2.org/church/the-shroud/https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holy_Prepuce#cite_note-Farley-6https://www.upra.orghttps://www.nature.com/articles/srep14484Uncovering the sources of DNA found on the Turin Shroud:https://www.livescience.com/63093-shroud-of-turin-is-fake-bloodstains.htmlhttps://sta2.org/church/school/https://reasontobelieve.com.au/eucharistic-miracle/https://www.science.org/content/article/researchers-hung-men-cross-and-added-blood-bid-prove-turin-shroud-real------------Please SUBSCRIBE and Rate!INSTAGRAM : itgotweird.podcastEMAIL: itgotweird.podcast@gmail.comSEND US YOUR STORIES, COMMENTS OR REQUESTS!https://redcircle.com/shows/and-then-it-got-weird I am accepting donations to help cover hosting, and other pod costs. If you wish to chip in, here:https://www.patreon.com/itgotweirdpodhttps://ko-fi.com/itgotweirdpodcast

Their thoughts on de-extinction: "We have no desire to participate as our species' experience on this planet is complete. You know not with what energy you are working; your time would be better spent accepting accountability for what you have wrought." https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/these-are-extinct-animals-we-can-should-resurrect-180954955/https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/resurrecthttps://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2076443/Turin-Shroud-created-flash-supernatural-light.htmlhttps://www.cell.com/current-biology/fulltext/S0960-9822(22)00249-4https://www.quantamagazine.org/why-de-extinction-is-impossible-but-could-work-anyway-20220509/https://colossal.com/how-de-extinction-works/#:~:text=De%2Dextinction%2C%20or%20resurrection%20biology,healthy%20ecosystems%20and%20restore%20biodiversity.https://www.cbsnews.com/news/earth-mass-extinction-60-minutes-2023-01-01/ Email me at lizanne@lizanneflynn.com. Schedule online at https://lizanneflynn.com/description-of-events/ Tweet me at https://twitter.com/LizanneFlynn Become a member of my private FB group at https://www.facebook.com/groups/2362606600471362 Thanks for listening! the Animals say "Together we are One."

Or Gregory Raspo, Monolith Magic, Travellin' Sheet, Hunters Collectors, Peentimesthree Punchon, Dandyman Bucaneer.

Justin Robinson of the Samlerhuset Group joins me to unpack an exciting new discovery–the Shroud of Turin's face on Byzantine coins?! If the Shroud is just a Medieval forgery this should be impossible. Justin is a rare coin historian working with the organization that strikes the Nobel Peace Prize medal, and his lifelong fascination with history, numismatics, and the Shroud have intersected in a profoundly intriguing way. Don't miss this one! LINKS/RESOURCES: - Justin's blog The Coins & History Foundation - https://coinsandhistoryfoundation.org/author/justinrobinsonlmo/ - British Society for the Turin Shroud's newsletter - http://www.bstsnewsletter.com/ - Shroud of Turin Education and Research Association, Inc.:  https://www.shroud.com/stera.htm - “Who Can He Be?” documentary and official website featuring lots of great information and links: https://www.whocanhebe.com - Coin News magazine: https://www.isubscribe.co.uk/Coin-News-Magazine-Subscription.cfm

Topic discuss: “Children's Health and Dieting” and “Turin Shroud” Presenter: Sharjeel Ahmad Tariq Bajwa Children's Health and Dieting With more than a quarter of children in England 'on diets', an alarming increase in children trying to lose weight has been observed. Join us live as we uncover the reasons behind this rise and conclude what is a healthy weight? Turin Shroud It was debunked as a forgery but many still believe the Shroud of Turin really is the authentic burial shroud of Prophet Jesus Christ. Now a film maker, David Rolf, has set a challenge with a $1million dollar reward saying that ‘If the Turin Shroud is a forgery, show how it was done'. Join us as we take a look at what we know about the crucifixion of Jesus Christ. Guest: Umairah Malik (Clinical Advice Coordinator at Beat) David Rolfe (award-winning film maker who challenged the British Museum that 'If the Turin Shroud is a forgery, show how it was done') Prof. Dr. Amtul Razzaq Carmichael (Consultant Surgeon & a senior member of The Review of Religions Editorial Board) Producers Zainab Fatima and Fezia Haq

Topics: 1 UK inflation rises at fastest rate for 40 years as food costs jump 1. Khalid Safir 2 The $1m challenge: ‘If the Turin Shroud is a forgery, show how it was done' 1. Pam Moon 2. Arif Khan 3. Robert Rutter Presenters Imam Taouqeer tanveer Waleed ahmed Producer Farva Mubashir Researchers Qudsia Ward, Saleha, Neha

This week, we're looking at the possible Turin Shroud of potato. And other non-animal news. Taken from our YouTube series, these are the full sessions of Lewis and Simon sitting down and looking through this week's pick of weird news! This week, a man spends a lot of money to fulfill his lifelong dream of being an actual dog. We don't know how it makes us feel. Check out the video series on YT: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FEFbHhDt8zk&list=PL3XZNMGhpynMFyKdRO8QJPsKnN59fmDsd&index=2 Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Interviews: Lisa Cotter, author, (Reveal the Gift: Living the Feminine Genius) & Tristan Casabianca (Do we really need new evidence and arguments for the Turin Shroud?)

Interviews: Lisa Cotter, author, (Reveal the Gift: Living the Feminine Genius) & Tristan Casabianca (Do we really need new evidence and arguments for the Turin Shroud?)

For this weeks episode Russ Breault is back on the podcast to talk about his most recent paper on "Historical References on the Turin Shroud from the Third through Thirteenth Centuries". Russ Breault has been researching and lecturing on The Shroud of Turin for over 30 years. His highly acclaimed presentation known as Shroud Encounter makes use of over 200 superb images and unfolds like a CSI investigation. He has presented to hundreds of audiences from New York to Hawaii. College and university presentations include Duke, Johns Hopkins, Penn State, Cal State, West Point, and many others. He has appeared in several nationally televised documentaries including Mysteries of the Ancient World on CBS.  Most recently, he appeared in the highly acclaimed, Uncovering the Face of Jesus —A two-hour documentary on The History Channel. Mr. Breault was both advisor and a primary expert for this groundbreaking program. He was a primary expert for EWTN's documentary, The Holy Winding Sheet. He has also been interviewed for Good Morning America, World News Tonight and was a consultant for CNN's Finding Jesus episode on the Shroud.   Subscribe to Spotify or Apple Podcasts to listen each week. New episodes are uploaded every Thursday-Friday. Want to learn more about author Guy R. Powell? Check out the socials below: Website: www.guypowell.com Instagram: @guy.r.powell Facebook: @AHistoryOfTheShroudOfTurin Email List: https://guypowell.us6.list-manage.com/subscribe?u=27f4c87d37aa36fffdca695f3&id=6857bf7051 Connect today to unlock the mysteries of the Shroud of Turin.

In When Art Isn't Real: The World's Most Controversial Objects under Investigation (Leuven University Press, 2022), Dr. Andrew Shortland and Dr. Patrick Degryse examine how an initially valueless object becomes worth hundreds of millions. And vice versa. The art world is a multi-billion-dollar industry which captures world headlines on a regular basis, for both good and bad reasons. This book deals with one of the most-discussed areas of controversy: high-profile objects that have experts arguing about their veracity. Some may have been looted, others may be fakes, some may be heavily restored or misattributed. Often, in these cases, analytical science is called on to settle a dispute. The authors of this book have decades of experience in this field, working on a range of objects dating from prehistory to the twentieth century. They present seven of the most famous cases from the Getty Kouros to the Turin Shroud – some of which are still contested, and examine how a few words from a connoisseur or scientist can make a virtually valueless object worth hundreds of millions. And vice versa. “We want to give readers some feel for the people involved. A feel for those period or material experts who give their opinion on an object's validity from its looks, feel, even smell. A feel for the analysts, who employ their sicnetific equipment to the object and give their opinion from the numbers and pictures that are derived from them. A feel for the experts working with, in parallel with, and occasionally against each other.” This interview was conducted by Dr. Miranda Melcher whose doctoral work focused on post-conflict military integration, understanding treaty negotiation and implementation in civil war contexts, with qualitative analysis of the Angolan and Mozambican civil wars. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/new-books-network

In When Art Isn't Real: The World's Most Controversial Objects under Investigation (Leuven University Press, 2022), Dr. Andrew Shortland and Dr. Patrick Degryse examine how an initially valueless object becomes worth hundreds of millions. And vice versa. The art world is a multi-billion-dollar industry which captures world headlines on a regular basis, for both good and bad reasons. This book deals with one of the most-discussed areas of controversy: high-profile objects that have experts arguing about their veracity. Some may have been looted, others may be fakes, some may be heavily restored or misattributed. Often, in these cases, analytical science is called on to settle a dispute. The authors of this book have decades of experience in this field, working on a range of objects dating from prehistory to the twentieth century. They present seven of the most famous cases from the Getty Kouros to the Turin Shroud – some of which are still contested, and examine how a few words from a connoisseur or scientist can make a virtually valueless object worth hundreds of millions. And vice versa. “We want to give readers some feel for the people involved. A feel for those period or material experts who give their opinion on an object's validity from its looks, feel, even smell. A feel for the analysts, who employ their sicnetific equipment to the object and give their opinion from the numbers and pictures that are derived from them. A feel for the experts working with, in parallel with, and occasionally against each other.” This interview was conducted by Dr. Miranda Melcher whose doctoral work focused on post-conflict military integration, understanding treaty negotiation and implementation in civil war contexts, with qualitative analysis of the Angolan and Mozambican civil wars. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/archaeology

In When Art Isn't Real: The World's Most Controversial Objects under Investigation (Leuven University Press, 2022), Dr. Andrew Shortland and Dr. Patrick Degryse examine how an initially valueless object becomes worth hundreds of millions. And vice versa. The art world is a multi-billion-dollar industry which captures world headlines on a regular basis, for both good and bad reasons. This book deals with one of the most-discussed areas of controversy: high-profile objects that have experts arguing about their veracity. Some may have been looted, others may be fakes, some may be heavily restored or misattributed. Often, in these cases, analytical science is called on to settle a dispute. The authors of this book have decades of experience in this field, working on a range of objects dating from prehistory to the twentieth century. They present seven of the most famous cases from the Getty Kouros to the Turin Shroud – some of which are still contested, and examine how a few words from a connoisseur or scientist can make a virtually valueless object worth hundreds of millions. And vice versa. “We want to give readers some feel for the people involved. A feel for those period or material experts who give their opinion on an object's validity from its looks, feel, even smell. A feel for the analysts, who employ their sicnetific equipment to the object and give their opinion from the numbers and pictures that are derived from them. A feel for the experts working with, in parallel with, and occasionally against each other.” This interview was conducted by Dr. Miranda Melcher whose doctoral work focused on post-conflict military integration, understanding treaty negotiation and implementation in civil war contexts, with qualitative analysis of the Angolan and Mozambican civil wars. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/art

In When Art Isn't Real: The World's Most Controversial Objects under Investigation (Leuven University Press, 2022), Dr. Andrew Shortland and Dr. Patrick Degryse examine how an initially valueless object becomes worth hundreds of millions. And vice versa. The art world is a multi-billion-dollar industry which captures world headlines on a regular basis, for both good and bad reasons. This book deals with one of the most-discussed areas of controversy: high-profile objects that have experts arguing about their veracity. Some may have been looted, others may be fakes, some may be heavily restored or misattributed. Often, in these cases, analytical science is called on to settle a dispute. The authors of this book have decades of experience in this field, working on a range of objects dating from prehistory to the twentieth century. They present seven of the most famous cases from the Getty Kouros to the Turin Shroud – some of which are still contested, and examine how a few words from a connoisseur or scientist can make a virtually valueless object worth hundreds of millions. And vice versa. “We want to give readers some feel for the people involved. A feel for those period or material experts who give their opinion on an object's validity from its looks, feel, even smell. A feel for the analysts, who employ their sicnetific equipment to the object and give their opinion from the numbers and pictures that are derived from them. A feel for the experts working with, in parallel with, and occasionally against each other.” This interview was conducted by Dr. Miranda Melcher whose doctoral work focused on post-conflict military integration, understanding treaty negotiation and implementation in civil war contexts, with qualitative analysis of the Angolan and Mozambican civil wars. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/economics

In When Art Isn't Real: The World's Most Controversial Objects under Investigation (Leuven University Press, 2022), Dr. Andrew Shortland and Dr. Patrick Degryse examine how an initially valueless object becomes worth hundreds of millions. And vice versa. The art world is a multi-billion-dollar industry which captures world headlines on a regular basis, for both good and bad reasons. This book deals with one of the most-discussed areas of controversy: high-profile objects that have experts arguing about their veracity. Some may have been looted, others may be fakes, some may be heavily restored or misattributed. Often, in these cases, analytical science is called on to settle a dispute. The authors of this book have decades of experience in this field, working on a range of objects dating from prehistory to the twentieth century. They present seven of the most famous cases from the Getty Kouros to the Turin Shroud – some of which are still contested, and examine how a few words from a connoisseur or scientist can make a virtually valueless object worth hundreds of millions. And vice versa. “We want to give readers some feel for the people involved. A feel for those period or material experts who give their opinion on an object's validity from its looks, feel, even smell. A feel for the analysts, who employ their sicnetific equipment to the object and give their opinion from the numbers and pictures that are derived from them. A feel for the experts working with, in parallel with, and occasionally against each other.” This interview was conducted by Dr. Miranda Melcher whose doctoral work focused on post-conflict military integration, understanding treaty negotiation and implementation in civil war contexts, with qualitative analysis of the Angolan and Mozambican civil wars. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/science-technology-and-society

In When Art Isn't Real: The World's Most Controversial Objects under Investigation (Leuven University Press, 2022), Dr. Andrew Shortland and Dr. Patrick Degryse examine how an initially valueless object becomes worth hundreds of millions. And vice versa. The art world is a multi-billion-dollar industry which captures world headlines on a regular basis, for both good and bad reasons. This book deals with one of the most-discussed areas of controversy: high-profile objects that have experts arguing about their veracity. Some may have been looted, others may be fakes, some may be heavily restored or misattributed. Often, in these cases, analytical science is called on to settle a dispute. The authors of this book have decades of experience in this field, working on a range of objects dating from prehistory to the twentieth century. They present seven of the most famous cases from the Getty Kouros to the Turin Shroud – some of which are still contested, and examine how a few words from a connoisseur or scientist can make a virtually valueless object worth hundreds of millions. And vice versa. “We want to give readers some feel for the people involved. A feel for those period or material experts who give their opinion on an object's validity from its looks, feel, even smell. A feel for the analysts, who employ their sicnetific equipment to the object and give their opinion from the numbers and pictures that are derived from them. A feel for the experts working with, in parallel with, and occasionally against each other.” This interview was conducted by Dr. Miranda Melcher whose doctoral work focused on post-conflict military integration, understanding treaty negotiation and implementation in civil war contexts, with qualitative analysis of the Angolan and Mozambican civil wars. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

In When Art Isn't Real: The World's Most Controversial Objects under Investigation (Leuven University Press, 2022), Dr. Andrew Shortland and Dr. Patrick Degryse examine how an initially valueless object becomes worth hundreds of millions. And vice versa. The art world is a multi-billion-dollar industry which captures world headlines on a regular basis, for both good and bad reasons. This book deals with one of the most-discussed areas of controversy: high-profile objects that have experts arguing about their veracity. Some may have been looted, others may be fakes, some may be heavily restored or misattributed. Often, in these cases, analytical science is called on to settle a dispute. The authors of this book have decades of experience in this field, working on a range of objects dating from prehistory to the twentieth century. They present seven of the most famous cases from the Getty Kouros to the Turin Shroud – some of which are still contested, and examine how a few words from a connoisseur or scientist can make a virtually valueless object worth hundreds of millions. And vice versa. “We want to give readers some feel for the people involved. A feel for those period or material experts who give their opinion on an object's validity from its looks, feel, even smell. A feel for the analysts, who employ their sicnetific equipment to the object and give their opinion from the numbers and pictures that are derived from them. A feel for the experts working with, in parallel with, and occasionally against each other.” This interview was conducted by Dr. Miranda Melcher whose doctoral work focused on post-conflict military integration, understanding treaty negotiation and implementation in civil war contexts, with qualitative analysis of the Angolan and Mozambican civil wars. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/book-of-the-day

In When Art Isn't Real: The World's Most Controversial Objects under Investigation (Leuven University Press, 2022), Dr. Andrew Shortland and Dr. Patrick Degryse examine how an initially valueless object becomes worth hundreds of millions. And vice versa. The art world is a multi-billion-dollar industry which captures world headlines on a regular basis, for both good and bad reasons. This book deals with one of the most-discussed areas of controversy: high-profile objects that have experts arguing about their veracity. Some may have been looted, others may be fakes, some may be heavily restored or misattributed. Often, in these cases, analytical science is called on to settle a dispute. The authors of this book have decades of experience in this field, working on a range of objects dating from prehistory to the twentieth century. They present seven of the most famous cases from the Getty Kouros to the Turin Shroud – some of which are still contested, and examine how a few words from a connoisseur or scientist can make a virtually valueless object worth hundreds of millions. And vice versa. “We want to give readers some feel for the people involved. A feel for those period or material experts who give their opinion on an object's validity from its looks, feel, even smell. A feel for the analysts, who employ their sicnetific equipment to the object and give their opinion from the numbers and pictures that are derived from them. A feel for the experts working with, in parallel with, and occasionally against each other.” This interview was conducted by Dr. Miranda Melcher whose doctoral work focused on post-conflict military integration, understanding treaty negotiation and implementation in civil war contexts, with qualitative analysis of the Angolan and Mozambican civil wars. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/digital-humanities

For this weeks episode we are joined by Pam Moon, who is a researcher on the Shroud of Turin and the Holy Mandylion. Her work can be found in numerous papers and her latest appearance on the documentary by David Rolfe titled Who Can He Be. Find out more on Pam Moon by heading to: https://independent.academia.edu/PamMoon1 and the British Society for the Turin Shroud at:https://bstsnewsletter.com/ Subscribe to Spotify or Apple Podcasts to listen each week. New episodes are uploaded every Thursday-Friday. Want to learn more about author Guy R. Powell? Check out the socials below: Website: www.guypowell.com Instagram: @guy.r.powell Facebook: @AHistoryOfTheShroudOfTurin Email List: https://guypowell.us6.list-manage.com/subscribe?u=27f4c87d37aa36fffdca695f3&id=6857bf7051 Connect today to unlock the mysteries of the Shroud of Turin.

Dr Andrew Silverman is a medical doctor who has been interested since childhood in the nature of what we are as human beings and what our potential is.He first became aware of the Turin Shroud on seeing a life-size photographic print of it at Nigel Kerner's house around 30 years ago. Dr Silverman has always been fascinated to know how the image could have formed and when he spoke to Nigel Kerner about it many years ago he explained his theory to him that light is frozen thought and matter is frozen light. Kerner also postulated that human transfiguration into light was a consequence of living a life as suggested and shown by the man whose image is on the shroud. Dr.Silverman gave a presentation in May this year at a scientific workshop in Frascati Italy discussing his and Nigel Kerner's ideas about the Shroud of Turin and how the image might have been formed. Dr. Silverman's full Paper will be published soon in the Proceedings of the Workshop: but here is the link to the abstract: http://www.acheiropoietos.info/abstracts/talks-for-tex-phi.html#philosophy - www.nigelkerner.com******************************************************************To listen to all our XZBN shows, with our compliments go to: https://www.spreaker.com/user/xzoneradiotv*** AND NOW ***The ‘X' Zone TV Channel on SimulTV - www.simultv.comThe ‘X' Chronicles Newspaper - www.xchroniclesnewspaper.com ******************************************************************

Dr Andrew Silverman is a medical doctor who has been interested since childhood in the nature of what we are as human beings and what our potential is.He first became aware of the Turin Shroud on seeing a life-size photographic print of it at Nigel Kerner's house around 30 years ago. Dr Silverman has always been fascinated to know how the image could have formed and when he spoke to Nigel Kerner about it many years ago he explained his theory to him that light is frozen thought and matter is frozen light. Kerner also postulated that human transfiguration into light was a consequence of living a life as suggested and shown by the man whose image is on the shroud. Dr.Silverman gave a presentation in May this year at a scientific workshop in Frascati Italy discussing his and Nigel Kerner's ideas about the Shroud of Turin and how the image might have been formed. Dr. Silverman's full Paper will be published soon in the Proceedings of the Workshop: but here is the link to the abstract: http://www.acheiropoietos.info/abstracts/talks-for-tex-phi.html#philosophy - www.nigelkerner.com******************************************************************To listen to all our XZBN shows, with our compliments go to: https://www.spreaker.com/user/xzoneradiotv*** AND NOW ***The ‘X' Zone TV Channel on SimulTV - www.simultv.comThe ‘X' Chronicles Newspaper - www.xchroniclesnewspaper.com ******************************************************************

In this second part of my interview with professional photographer Barrie Schwortz, we dive more into the Carbon 14 dating controversy related to the Turin Shroud. Mr. Schwortz also addresses common arguments against the Shroud's authenticity and gives us a very honest understanding of his own faith journey, one that may surprise you. Come along as we further explore one of the most fascinating relics in all of Christendom, the Shroud of Turin. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

In this episode of the Backstory of the Shroud of Turin, I am interviewing Brenda Benton a public speaker on the Turin Shroud. She has been involved with the Turin Shroud since 1978, just weeks before her only child died. When her husband Stuart saw David Rolfe's film, “The Silent Witness.” (1978) This film about the Turin Shroud has had a powerful impact on the rest of our lives. Thirty-three years later they met Pam Moon through an amazing set of circumstances. Pam invited them to be part of her British Shroud Exhibition team, and this led to us meeting many respected figures in the Shroud World. They also work for the https://www.bstsnewsletter.com/ (British Society for the Turin Shroud), and give talks on their Shroud journey and the impact Pam's exhibition has on its visitors. Subscribe to Spotify or Apple Podcasts to listen each week. New episodes are uploaded every Thursday-Friday. Want to learn more about author Guy R. Powell? Check out the socials below: Website: www.guypowell.com Instagram: @guy.r.powell Facebook: @AHistoryOfTheShroudOfTurin Email List: https://guypowell.us6.list-manage.com/subscribe?u=27f4c87d37aa36fffdca695f3&id=6857bf7051 Connect today to unlock the mysteries of the Shroud of Turin.

We look at Good Friday and the historical evidence surrounding the Crucifixion of Jesus Christ, including the Turin Shroud and the St Helens discovery of the True Cross

Greetings all and welcome to Answerable Questions with Questionable Answers! This week on the pod we're talking all about those big historical mysteries that we'd all love to get to the bottom of. There's talk of the Turin Shroud, the Hanging Gardens of Babylon, Walkers Crisps, JFK, the Loch Ness monster, Jack the Ripper and more.  If you'd like to get in touch we're on twitter and insta @aqqapod. Happy listening!

The Shroud is back! But this time we head across the Atlantic to the UK for a marvelous and inspiring Shroud of Turin experience that is educating people and transforming lives. LINKS/RESOURCES: - British Shroud of Turin Exhibition website:  http://www.shroudofturinexhibition.com/Shroud_of_Turin_exhibition/Home.html - The British Society for the Turin Shroud's newsletter:  https://bstsnewsletter.com - BSTS Facebook page:  https://www.facebook.com/BSTSNews - New David Rolfe film "Who Can He Be?: A Quest for Justice": https://www.whocanhebe.com ================== For more faith-enriching content than you'll know what to do with, be sure to visit https://thegraciousguest.org and follow The Gracious Guest on Twitter: https://twitter.com/mikecreavey

Barrie Schwortz from Shroud.com has given decades of his life and expertise to investigating one of the greatest mysteries of all time - the Turin Shroud... Hear his latest thoughts and reflections on his original and groundbreaking 1978 research on this Edition....

Dr Andrew Silverman is a medical doctor who has been interested since childhood in the nature of what we are as human beings and what our potential is.He first became aware of the Turin Shroud on seeing a life-size photographic print of it at Nigel Kerner's house around 30 years ago. Dr Silverman has always been fascinated to know how the image could have formed and when he spoke to Nigel Kerner about it many years ago he explained his theory to him that light is frozen thought and matter is frozen light. Kerner also postulated that human transfiguration into light was a consequence of living a life as suggested and shown by the man whose image is on the shroud. Dr.Silverman gave a presentation in May this year at a scientific workshop in Frascati Italy discussing his and Nigel Kerner's ideas about the Shroud of Turin and how the image might have been formed. Dr. Silverman's full Paper will be published soon in the Proceedings of the Workshop: but here is the link to the abstract: http://www.acheiropoietos.info/abstracts/talks-for-tex-phi.html#philosophy - www.nigelkerner.com******************************************************************To listen to all our XZBN shows, with our compliments go to: https://www.spreaker.com/user/xzoneradiotv*** AND NOW ***The ‘X' Zone TV Channel on SimulTV - www.simultv.comThe ‘X' Chronicles Newspaper - www.xchroniclesnewspaper.com ******************************************************************

The Turin Shroud, the staff of Moses...why do some believers make pilgrimages to see and touch religious relics? Do these objects have any agency in the real world, or are they frauds? Mohammed Ahmed and Ilaria Bernocchi join Ed Kessler to re-examine relics... Like this podcast? Please help us by writing a review

Since its first mention in historical accounts dating back to the mid 1300s, the Turin Shroud has been the subject of intrigue, discussion, danger, and modern day scientific study. In this episode we discuss the mystery of the shroud, the remarkable discovery showing the image is a negative and how science has tried to shed light on its validity and origins. FB/IG @robotsforeyespodcast podbelly.com elyucateco.com retrovague.com Code robots for 10% off Robotsforeyespodcast.com     FB/IG @robotsforeyespodcast podbelly.com elyucateco.com retrovague.com Code robots for 10% off Robotsforeyespodcast.com  

Fr. Robert Spitzer believes there are many areas where science and religion intersect - he explains why - and we also talk about his deep research into the mystery of the Turin Shroud

September 17, 2020 Larry Stalley joins Matt with Todd Engle recently acquitted of all charges stemming from the Bundy Ranch confrontation with the Bureau of land management. Larry Stalley has been very active in Christian ministry over the past forty years.  He and his wife, Mary Beth, have done missionary work in China and have hosted several international students in their home.  They raised three daughters. Work ... by the grace of God: Teaching pastor for many years University degrees, with honors, in Biblical Languages (Greek/Hebrew) and Church History Author of nine academic papers regarding the Shroud of Turin.  Most of these papers analyze specific statements within the New Testament that, in the author's opinion, are likely veiled or cryptic references to the Turin Shroud.  Due to persecution (and to safeguard the Shroud) it is thought any reference to the Shroud would have been veiled.   Five of these papers have been published online at www.shroud.com.  [For an abstract on each paper, as well as the paper itself, click "here" on the left side of this page.  Links are to www.academia.edu. where the most recent revisions for all papers are posted.  You may need to sign up for a free account in order to access papers on Academia.edu]   Speaker in Canada at 2019 International Conference: Science, Theology and the Turin Shroud. Like our page at Facebook/PatriotRadioUS and listen in each Tuesday and Thursday at 4:00 PST with a replay at 9:00 PST on any of these great stations! 106.5 FM Spokane101.3 FM Tri-Cities/Walla Walla93.9 FM Moses Lake106.1 FM Moses Lake96.1 FM Yakima96.5 FM Spokane/CdA97.7 FM Spokane/CdA810 AM Wenatchee/Moses Lake930 AM Yakima630 AM Spokane1050 AM Spokane and Far Beyond

Grey Aliens and the Harvesting of Souls - The Shroud of Turin Connection - Dr Andrew Silverman is a medical doctor who has been interested since childhood in the nature of what we are as human beings and what our potential is.He first became aware of the Turin Shroud on seeing a life-size photographic print of it at Nigel Kerner's house around 30 years ago. Dr Silverman has always been fascinated to know how the image could have formed and when he spoke to Nigel Kerner about it many years ago he explained his theory to him that light is frozen thought and matter is frozen light. Kerner also postulated that human transfiguration into light was a consequence of living a life as suggested and shown by the man whose image is on the shroud. Dr.Silverman gave a presentation in May this year at a scientific workshop in Frascati Italy discussing his and Nigel Kerner's ideas about the Shroud of Turin and how the image might have been formed. Dr. Silverman's full Paper will be published soon in the Proceedings of the Workshop: but here is the link to the abstract: http://www.acheiropoietos.info/abstracts/talks-for-tex-phi.html#philosophy - www.nigelkerner.com

Grey Aliens and the Harvesting of Souls - The Shroud of Turin Connection - Dr Andrew Silverman is a medical doctor who has been interested since childhood in the nature of what we are as human beings and what our potential is.He first became aware of the Turin Shroud on seeing a life-size photographic print of it at Nigel Kerner's house around 30 years ago. Dr Silverman has always been fascinated to know how the image could have formed and when he spoke to Nigel Kerner about it many years ago he explained his theory to him that light is frozen thought and matter is frozen light. Kerner also postulated that human transfiguration into light was a consequence of living a life as suggested and shown by the man whose image is on the shroud. Dr.Silverman gave a presentation in May this year at a scientific workshop in Frascati Italy discussing his and Nigel Kerner's ideas about the Shroud of Turin and how the image might have been formed. Dr. Silverman's full Paper will be published soon in the Proceedings of the Workshop: but here is the link to the abstract: http://www.acheiropoietos.info/abstracts/talks-for-tex-phi.html#philosophy - www.nigelkerner.com

Grey Aliens and the Harvesting of Souls - The Shroud of Turin Connection - Dr Andrew Silverman is a medical doctor who has been interested since childhood in the nature of what we are as human beings and what our potential is.He first became aware of the Turin Shroud on seeing a life-size photographic print of it at Nigel Kerner's house around 30 years ago. Dr Silverman has always been fascinated to know how the image could have formed and when he spoke to Nigel Kerner about it many years ago he explained his theory to him that light is frozen thought and matter is frozen light. Kerner also postulated that human transfiguration into light was a consequence of living a life as suggested and shown by the man whose image is on the shroud. Dr.Silverman gave a presentation in May this year at a scientific workshop in Frascati Italy discussing his and Nigel Kerner's ideas about the Shroud of Turin and how the image might have been formed. Dr. Silverman's full Paper will be published soon in the Proceedings of the Workshop: but here is the link to the abstract: http://www.acheiropoietos.info/abstracts/talks-for-tex-phi.html#philosophy - www.nigelkerner.com

Grey Aliens and the Harvesting of Souls - The Shroud of Turin Connection - Dr Andrew Silverman is a medical doctor who has been interested since childhood in the nature of what we are as human beings and what our potential is.He first became aware of the Turin Shroud on seeing a life-size photographic print of it at Nigel Kerner's house around 30 years ago. Dr Silverman has always been fascinated to know how the image could have formed and when he spoke to Nigel Kerner about it many years ago he explained his theory to him that light is frozen thought and matter is frozen light. Kerner also postulated that human transfiguration into light was a consequence of living a life as suggested and shown by the man whose image is on the shroud. Dr.Silverman gave a presentation in May this year at a scientific workshop in Frascati Italy discussing his and Nigel Kerner's ideas about the Shroud of Turin and how the image might have been formed. Dr. Silverman's full Paper will be published soon in the Proceedings of the Workshop: but here is the link to the abstract: http://www.acheiropoietos.info/abstracts/talks-for-tex-phi.html#philosophy - www.nigelkerner.com

June 13th, 2020 A medical doctor with a background in physics, Dr. Andrew Silverman has been conducting research on the ‘mind-matter continuum’, near death experiences and the Turin Shroud for over thirty years.  More recently his findings have been presented in peer-reviewed scientific papers and at international scientific conferences. He is widely recognized as one of the leading experts on the Shroud and is currently in collaboration with other major scientists from around the world to solve the riddle of this unique object and how the image was formed. He has presented papers to the Scientific and Medical Network and the Society for Scientific Exploration where he was introduced as a pioneer among a new generation of scientists who see that evidence from many disparate fields of enquiry all points to a conclusion that consciousness is fundamental and not merely a product of matter. In his new book ‘A Burst of Conscious Light' Dr. Andrew Silverman provides evidence that human consciousness can never be reproduced and exposes the perils of artificial intelligence.   Guest Website  

Historically, the Shroud of Turin is a 14th Century, roughly 14-foot-long, almost 4-foot-wide piece of preserved linen, on which faint yellowish images of the front and back of a crucified 5-foot, 7-inch male can be seen …. It has been claimed for hundreds of years that this Middle Ages relic is, in fact, none other than the centuries-old burial shroud of “Jesus of Nazareth” — the Risen Christ! But what does modern Science say about the Shroud’s true origins? My guest tonight, Dr. Andrew Silverman, describes not only the latest scientific Shroud analysis — indicating that the crucified images were somehow created by a process, not only unknown in the Middle Ages, but still unknown to 21st Century Science (!) — he then explores the extraordinary human implications of Christianity’s most sacred “crucifixion artifact” — produced by “a completely unknown process” …. Including — “where are we before we are [...]

Richard welcomes a physician and expert on the Shroud of Turin who shares scientific evidence of how the image on the Shroud of Turin was produced and connects these findings to evidence concerning near-death experiences and the nature of human consciousness. GUEST: Dr. Andrew Silverman is a medical doctor with a background in physiology and has been interested from an early age in the nature of what we are as human beings and what our potential is. He has always been fascinated to know how the image on the Turin Shroud could have formed being mindful of the fact that it can not be replicated even with 21st Century technology. In May 2010 he presented a paper on the Turin Shroud at a conference at the atomic physics research centre ENEA in Frascati, Italy and he presented two more papers at the University of Torun in Poland in May 2011. Listen live every Sunday at 11pm on Zoomer Radio

In this fully revised and updated edition, the bestselling authors of The Templar Revelation present new and compelling evidence linking Leonardo da Vinci with the forgery of Christianity's most famous relic. For centuries the Turin Shroud was believed to be Christ's authentic burial cloth, miraculously imprinted with his image -- but in 1988 carbon dating revealed it is a medieval- or Renaissance-era forgery. However, authors Lynn Picknett and Clive Prince realized that the 1988 discovery prompted even more questions:The image seems to be a photograph -- so could the Turin Shroud actually be the world's first photograph?If the face of the man on the Shroud is not Jesus', whose is it?Who had the sheer audacity to create what would become an infamous relic of Christianity, faking even Christ's holy, redemptive blood?Whoever did this was not only a genius but also a heretic....After more than a decade of research, Picknett and Prince have accumulated evidence that shows not only was the forger of the Turin Shroud none other than Leonardo da Vinci but also that he used his own face for that of Christ. The Turin Shroud is, among other things, a five-hundred-year-old photograph of Leonardo da Vinci. Could Christianity's greatest relic in fact be an attempt to undermine the religion itself?In this revision of their 1994 book, London-based writers Prince and Picknett jump on the Da Vinci Code bandwagon by claiming that the face on the Turin shroud is not Jesus but Da Vinci himself. Based on their research into the carbon-dating of the Shroud and their own re-creation of the circumstances under which the Shroud could have been created, they conclude that the Shroud is man-made, comes from no earlier than the 14th century, and that Leonardo (whom they claim invented photography) used photographic technology for the basis for the painted image. For their research, the authors compared Da Vinci’s painting Salvator Mundi with the image on the shroud and found that it matched up perfectly with the man on the Shroud. While the authors can provide no proof that Da Vinci used his face as the model for the face on the Shroud, their research claims a never-before acknowledged connection between Leonardo and the Shroud. Unfortunately, the authors’ fast-paced and detailed detective work results in little more than speculation about Da Vinci’s relationship to the Shroud. Only slightly provocative, the book tediously searches for new clues in an old case now shrouded in indifference.

Today’s guest was the Official Documenting Photographer for the Shroud of Turin Research Project (STURP), the team that conducted the first in-depth scientific examination of the Shroud in 1978. Today, he plays an influential role in Shroud research and education as the editor and founder of the internationally recognized Shroud of Turin Website, Shroud dot-com, the oldest, largest and most extensive Shroud resource on the Internet, with more than fifteen million visitors from over 160 countries.In 2009 he founded the Shroud of Turin Education and Research Association, Inc. (STERA, Inc.), a non-profit 501(c)(3) corporation, to which he donated the website and his extensive Shroud photographic collection, as well as many other important Shroud resources, in order to preserve and maintain these materials and make them available for future research and study. He currently serves as the President of STERA, Inc.Today, we’ll walk through the pages of history, both recent (1978) and ancient (possibly as far back as the 1st century AD). Barrie M. Schwortz is our tour guide…

Today’s guest was the Official Documenting Photographer for the Shroud of Turin Research Project (STURP), the team that conducted the first in-depth scientific examination of the Shroud in 1978. Today, he plays an influential role in Shroud research and education as the editor and founder of the internationally recognized Shroud of Turin Website, Shroud dot-com, the oldest, largest and most extensive Shroud resource on the Internet, with more than fifteen million visitors from over 160 countries. In 2009 he founded the Shroud of Turin Education and Research Association, Inc. (STERA, Inc.), a non-profit 501(c)(3) corporation, to which he donated the website and his extensive Shroud photographic collection, as well as many other important Shroud resources, in order to preserve and maintain these materials and make them available for future research and study. He currently serves as the President of STERA, Inc. Today, we’ll walk through the pages of history, both recent (1978) and ancient (possibly as far back as the 1st century AD). Barrie M. Schwortz is our tour guide…

Today’s guest was the Official Documenting Photographer for the Shroud of Turin Research Project (STURP), the team that conducted the first in-depth scientific examination of the Shroud in 1978. Today, he plays an influential role in Shroud research and education as the editor and founder of the internationally recognized Shroud of Turin Website, Shroud dot-com, the oldest, largest and most extensive Shroud resource on the Internet, with more than fifteen million visitors from over 160 countries.In 2009 he founded the Shroud of Turin Education and Research Association, Inc. (STERA, Inc.), a non-profit 501(c)(3) corporation, to which he donated the website and his extensive Shroud photographic collection, as well as many other important Shroud resources, in order to preserve and maintain these materials and make them available for future research and study. He currently serves as the President of STERA, Inc.Today, we’ll walk through the pages of history, both recent (1978) and ancient (possibly as far back as the 1st century AD). Barrie M. Schwortz is our tour guide…

The Shroud of Turin is a piece of linen cloth bearing the image of a bearded man resembling the traditional Catholic image of Jesus Christ. The Shroud is thought by many to be the actual burial linen of Jesus of Nazareth, having been left behind by Jesus after the Resurrection. In the years since its discovery, the Turin Shroud has consistently generated controversy and heated debates between the religious and secular scientific communities. Over the years, the Shroud has been proven to be both a medieval era forgery and a genuine 2,000 length of linen - it is so controversial that even the Catholic Church is hesitant to accept its legitimacy. In this episode of Big, If True, Matt and Kayla discuss the last days of Jesus Christ, the history of the Shroud of Turin, and the many scientific tests that have proven and disproven its legitimacy. Support Big, If True on Patreon at www.patreon.com/bigiftrue Subscribe to Big, If True on Apple Podcasts, Google Play, Stitcher, or wherever you listen to podcasts - while you're at it, leave us a rating or review telling us what you love about the show! Email us at: bigiftruepodcast@gmail.com Follow us on:Twitter: bigiftruecastInstagram: bigiftruecastFacebook: bigiftruecastTumblr: bigiftruecast.tumblr.comMinds: bigiftrueGab: bigiftrue Intro/Disclaimer: Josh McLellan (http://www.fiverr.com/joshmclellan) Music: https://www.purple-planet.com

Episode 4: Busting Shroud Myths, Part 2:  In one statement, John Walsh (His book The Shroud) observed: “The Shroud of Turin is either the most awesome and instructive relic of Jesus Christ in existence ... or it is one of the most ingenious, most unbelievably clever, products of the human mind and hand on record. It is one or the other; there is no middle ground.”  I did a recent - July, 2019 - survey of Baptist Pastors on The Shroud of Turin. Of those that responded to the poll - only 3.5 percent believed that the Shroud was the genuine burial cloth of Jesus. Half of them were agnostic - it was an interesting historical artifact that could not be verified, and just slightly under half 41 percent - believed the Shroud to be a forgery. I did a much larger poll in The Astonishing Legends facebook group - a group of people that are quite open and interested in paranormal things. In that survey, 132 out of 350 - 38 percent - believed the Shroud to be a hoax, which is very similar to the Baptist pastor's percentage. However, there were more true believers in the paranormal group, with 37 out of 350 - 11 percent - believing that the Shroud was the genuine burial cloth of Jesus. Shroud agnostics - believing the Shroud to be interesting, but unverifiable - represented 181 out of 350 respondents, just over half at 52 percent. Therefore, based on my informal surveys of a little over 400 people - roughly half of those respondents are just like me - uncertain about the Shroud. Over the next few episodes of this podcast, we are going to cover the history of the Shroud of Turin, and the most modern research and findings. Maybe by the time we are done, we'll all still be Shroud agnostics, but maybe - just maybe - we will together unearth enough information to change our minds and develop a clearer and more definitive view of one of the most controversial and noteworthy artifacts of church history.   Today, we are continuing to bust some myths about the Shroud. Next episode we will present 10-25 arguments in favor of the authenticity of the Shroud, some arguments against it, and likely conclude this series. Myth: The Shroud has always been owned by the Catholic Church, and they have officially endorsed it. In fact, it appears that the Catholic Church did not have official possession of The Shroud until 1983 when the royal House of Savoy conveyed ownership of The Shroud to The Holy See. If you remember your AP Modern European History, you might remember that the Savoys began as a small ruling family in the Alps northwest of Italy proper, and grew to become the dominant royal family in Italy, reigning over the country from 1861-1946, and also briefly ruled Spain in the 1800s. Although the Catholic church does not have an official position on The Shroud, several Popes and other church officials have commented favorably about it, including: Cardinal Ratzenberger/Pope Benedict, who called The Shroud, “A truly mysterious image, which no human artistry was capable of producing. In some inexplicable way, it appeared imprinted upon cloth and claimed to show the true face of Christ, the crucified and risen Lord".” (This was said when Ratzenberger was a Cardinal, and was not said officially/Ex Cathedra, so it was not considered an official endorsement of the whole church. Pius 11, 1936, “These are not pictures of the Blessed Virgin, it is true, but pictures that remind us of her as no other can. Since they are pictures of her Divine Son, and so, we can truly say, the most moving, loveliest, dearest ones that we can imagine."   What a strange quote - am I wrong that it seems to be suggesting that pictures of Mary, mother of Jesus, would be more remarkable than pictures of Jesus, the son of God? When any theology places more attention, emphasis and weight on Mary than they do on Jesus, this is where I have a massive difference with them. Source of quote “The Shroud, a Guide” by Gino Morreto. (I note here that I can't find this quote by Pius 11 elsewhere) Pope John Paul II  "Since it is not a matter of faith, the church has no specific competence to pronounce on these questions," the late Pope John Paul II said in 1998. ALSO:  “The Holy Shroud is the most splendid relic of the Passion and Resurrection [of Our Lord Jesus Christ]. We become what we contemplate... Why don't we contemplate the Icon of Icons: The Holy Face of Jesus!" Instead of icons made by man, let us venerate the greatest icon of all: The Holy Face of Jesus!” and also, “The Shroud is an image of God's love as well as of human sin ... The imprint left by the tortured body of the Crucified One, which attests to the tremendous human capacity for causing pain and death to one's fellow man, stands as an icon of the suffering of the innocent in every age." Most recently, Pope Francis commented on The Shroud during his first Easter address: Dear Brothers and Sisters, I join all of you gathered before the Holy Shroud, and I thank the Lord for offering us this opportunity, thanks also to new devices. We do not merely “look” if we are looking at it, it is not a simple look, but it is a form of veneration, a look of prayer and also it is a way of letting him look at us. This face has eyes that are closed, it is the face of one who is dead, and yet mysteriously he is watching us, and in silence he speaks to us. How is this possible? How is it that the faithful, like you, pause before this icon of a man scourged and crucified? It is because the Man of the Shroud invites us to contemplate Jesus of Nazareth.  This image, impressed upon the cloth, speaks to our heart and moves us to climb the hill of Calvary, to look upon the wood of the Cross, and to immerse ourselves in the eloquent silence of love. Let us therefore allow ourselves to be reached by this look, which is directed not to our eyes but to our heart. In silence, let us listen to what he has to say to us from beyond death itself. By means of the Holy Shroud, the unique and supreme Word of God comes to us: Love made man, incarnate in our history; the merciful love of God who has taken upon himself all the evil of the world to free us from its power.  This disfigured face resembles all those faces of men and women marred by a life which does not respect their dignity, by war and violence which afflict the weakest… And yet, at the same time, the face in the Shroud conveys a great peace; this tortured body expresses a sovereign majesty. It is as if it let a restrained but powerful energy within it shine through, as if to say: have faith, do not lose hope; the power of the love of God, the power of the Risen One overcomes all things. So, looking upon the Man of the Shroud, I make my own the prayer which Saint Francis of Assisi prayed before the Crucifix: Most High, glorious God, enlighten the shadows of my heart, and grant me a right faith, a certain hope and perfect charity, sense and understanding, Lord, so that I may accomplish your holy and true command. Amen. One Catholic commentator on St. Francis' speech above noted, “"The shroud draws [people] to the tormented face and body of Jesus and, at the same time, directs [people] toward the face of every suffering and unjustly persecuted person." This is condemning/damming the Shroud with faint praise and reinforces that Pope Francis really does think (wrongly) that the Shroud is just another fake icon.” I agree with that commentator - reading between the lines of St. Francis' pronunciation, speech, it is quite clear that he is either a Shroud Agnostic, or possibly even thinks it is a forgery.  So - it would seem that, in the Catholic church, the opinions on the authenticity of The Shroud are quite varied. It appears that more Catholic leaders consider The Shroud authentic than do leaders of other major religious groups, but the fact that The Vatican has stopped short of pronouncing the Turin Shroud should possibly give us pause. Do they have reason to suspect it is inauthentic - unreleased reasons? Possibly.  I'll say this - I don't understand religious veneration of objects. That seems completely contra to the clear teachings of the Old and New Testaments. Some branches of Christianity do this, but I think they are missing it. If The Shroud is authentic, then it is fascinating and wonderful, but not at all worthy of a single drop of religious devotion. If it is inauthentic, then it is less so.  Either way, it is a fascinating artifact.  If genuine, it is one of the great treasures of history and should be in our finest museum. Just don't worship it - it is a linen cloth. It didn't die for you. It has no power to save you. I see no indication that it holds any special significance to God. I own a collectible card with a verified piece of a jacket that Elvis Presley sang in and wore. If I had the whole jacket - what would that avail me? Would it help me dance better? Sing better? Become more famous? Could I bring it to Graceland and get free entry for wearing it? Could I take it to surviving members of Elvis' family, and ask to become an honorary Presley? None of those things. And The Shroud would get you less far in Heaven than The Presley jacket would get you in Graceland.  What should we do if it is inauthentic? Burn it, throw it away? Of course not! I still believe it belongs in our finest museums of art (as opposed to history) If it is art - it is incredible art. Mystifying and awe-inspiring.  Whatever it is - The Vatican isn't saying for sure one way, or another. They appear to be fans, but in a mostly unofficial capacity. Maybe Myth: The Shroud has been fully replicated. One of the major issues that has surrounded The Shroud from the beginning has been that, up until recently - even skeptics agreed that the way The Shroud was produced is unknown and thus postulating a medieval forgery was quite difficult, because nobody knew how a person could forge such an image with medieval equipment. There have been other ancient technologies that have been a mystery to modern man. Damascus steel, for instance, has not been inarguably replicated by modern blacksmiths. Roman Concrete has a kind of durability that modern concrete lacks, and scientists are only recently discovering some of the secrets to its longevity. Archimedes is said to have developed a sort of heat ray that was powerful enough to burn up boats from a significant distance away, but it is difficult for us to replicate such a ray using the technology that Archimedes would have had 200 years before the birth of Jesus. To that list, we should certainly add The Shroud, for if it is a forgery - it is an incredibly sophisticated, impressive and technologically advanced one. N.D. Wilson's amazing 2005 article in Christianity Today, entitled “Father Brown fakes The Shroud” is a must read for Shroud enthusiasts. Unfortunately, the only possible way to read it is to get your hands on that 2005 magazine in a library somewhere, or pay CT $30 for a digital subscription - which is what I did. 15 years ago N.D. Wilson supposedly figured out how one might fake The Shroud of Turin, and since that time, I have heard several people say or intimate that The Shroud had conclusively been proven a fraud with the 1-2 punch of #1 1988 medieval dating and #2 Wilson's reproduction. Wilson's method of duplicating The Shroud is ingenious. Basically, he and an artist friend painted a reverse image on a large pane of glass, and then had the sun shine through that image onto a Linen cloth over a period of several days. The sun bleached the cloth - lighter in areas of heavy paint and darker in areas of light paint. The resulting image does indeed look fairly authentic and Shroud-like to the naked eye. It does prove that it is possible, with the right equipment,  to put a negative-like image like The Shroud onto a linen cloth. Here are some objections that have been raised: 1. The cloth contains pollen from plants only found in Palestine - that would be difficult for a European forger to get. For one, he would have no idea that such a thing could potentially authenticate The Shroud. Wilson notes that the cloth could have been procured from a first century, Jewish grave, which I suppose is technically possible.  2. The figure in the Turin Shroud is pierced through his wrists, not through his hands. In recent years, it has been discovered that crucified people would have to have been pierced through their wrists (and not their hands) in order to actually be suspended from a cross. This does not at all contradict the Passion accounts in all four Gospels in the Bible, because the Greek word used for ‘hands' can also include the wrist area, unlike our English, which more clearly delineates between the two. Almost the totality of medieval art depicts the nails used during the crucifixion of Jesus being located in the hands, rather than the wrists. If the Shroud were a forgery, it is remarkable in the extreme that the forger would have known to include nail holes in the wrists, rather than in the hands. 3. I am not an expert on 1300s era glass technology, but some who are have argued that the kind of large and flat pane windows that would have been needed to sun-bleach the painted image of a man onto a large linen cloth would not have been available in the early medieval period. This is a fairly strong objection that I don't believe Wilson's article - as thorough as it is - addresses fully. 4. The figure on the Shroud has real wounds and real blood. This, of course, means that it was more than merely a sun-bleached image. Wilson contends that somebody had to have been murdered in order for forgers to make The Shroud using his method. Again, such a thing is technically possible. 5. It appears to some that the figure in The Shroud has coins in its eyes - and the type of coins appear to be first century coins that would have been commonly used in Israel during the time of Christ. That a medieval forger would be able to add such a detail is fairly astonishing. Of course, as with everything surrounding The Shroud, others (and Wilson, I presume) argue that there are no coin impressions in the eyes of the Shroud-figure. 6. Finally, if The Shroud is a forgery, those who painted the image on the glass had a remarkable and accurate knowledge of both the full details of Roman crucifixion and how the body would have responded to such crucifixion. Additionally, the anonymous forgers would have had to have a strong knowledge of anatomy and wound-effects, as the wounds on The Shroud figure are consistent with what modern medical technology would expect. Wilson contends that there were many medieval people with deep and accurate knowledge of anatomy, and the only reason we don't expect the forgers to have such knowledge is because we have a sort of bias against people from the past and assume they are unsophisticated and unintelligent. Such bias is certainly real, I will readily admit, though it does seem that medical history of the last 500 years demonstrates that medieval medicine and anatomy was indeed quite primitive. So - did Wilson definitively prove that medieval forgers could have produced The Shroud? Maybe, maybe not. Even Wilson admits, “I have not proved much. Or, I do not think that I have. Men and women who have believed in the Shroud will continue to believe. There is a fireman somewhere in Italy who risked his life to save the Shroud. I have a great deal of respect for that man. Perhaps I've given those who disbelieve more reason for noses lifted in the air, but I have not proved that the Shroud was faked. What I have done is crudely demonstrate that such an image could easily be produced in a matter of weeks by wicked men with no scruples, a little imagination, and a little more skill. The fact that it could have been faked does not mean that it was, though I believe it to have been. ”   I'll say this - Wilson's supposed forgers would have had to be: remarkably intelligent, gifted with art, well supplied with very rare (if existent) glass panes, and have an astonishing - for the time - knowledge of medicine, Roman history and human anatomy. Additionally, they would have had to be in possession of a cloth from Palestine, and possibly even pollen that had come from Palestine as well.  There have been other attempts to recreate the Shroud as well. In 2009 the University of Pavia organic chemistry professor and skeptic society member Luigi Garlaschelli produced a fairly convincing (at first glance) reproduction. He describes his attempt: "What you have now is a very fuzzy, dusty and weak image, Then for the sake of completeness I have added the bloodstains, the burns, the scorching because there was a fire in 1532." Garlaschelli says his work disproves the claims of the shroud's strongest supporters. "Basically the Shroud of Turin has some strange properties and characteristics that they say cannot be reproduced by human hands,"For example, the image is superficial and has no pigment, it looks so lifelike and so on, and therefore they say it cannot have been done by an artist." "The procedure is very simple. The artist took this sheet and put it over one of his assistants," "His good idea was to wrap the sheet over the person underneath because he didn't want to obtain an image that was too obviously a painting or a drawing, so with this procedure you get a strange image, Time did the rest,"  As you might imagine, there are several people who disagree that Garlaschelli has produced a convincing replica. Dr. Thibault Heimburger has written an extensive and scientific rebuttal of Garlaschelli's method, essentially arguing that it does not really duplicate all of the elements of the Shroud, but is only a superficial likeness. His paper, linked in the shownotes, concludes:  L.G. concluded: “We have also shown that pigments containing traces of acidic compounds can be artificially aged after the rubbing step (…) in such a way that, when the pigment is washed away, an image is obtained having the expected characteristics as the Shroud of Turin. In particular the image is pseudo negative, is fuzzy with half-tones, resides on the top-most fibers of the cloth, has some 3D embedded properties and does not fluoresce”. I think to the contrary that the image has none of these characteristics (except negativity and nonfluorescence). L.G. used a sophisticated method and a new interesting hypothesis, and he got the best Shroud-like image today. It is interesting to notice that even so, the properties of his image remain in fact very far from the fundamental properties of the Shroud image. 9 For the moment, the Shroud image remains unfakeable. Source: https://www.shroud.com/pdfs/thibault-lg.pdf Shroud blogger Stephen Jones has also debunked the replication of Garlaschelli: http://theshroudofturin.blogspot.com/2018/08/my-critique-of-borrini-m-garlaschelli-l.html  3. The complex herringbone twill pattern of the Shroud was not possible in the first century.  Some Shroud skeptics have speculated that the particular pattern of sewing used on the Shroud is too complex and advanced have been created in the first century.  In the Summer of 2000, archaeologists James Tabor and Shimon Gibson stumbled upon a freshly robbed first century grave outside of Jerusalem. Amazingly, the grave still had bodies in it, and one of them was encased in a somewhat intact first century shroud - the first shroud of that era that has been recovered in or around Jerusalem. Tabor writes of this discovery in a way that is very dismissive of the Turin Shroud:  Although 1st century cloth has been found at Masada and in caves in the Judean Desert, nothing of this sort had ever been found in Jerusalem. Apparently that niche, sealed with a blocking stone, had a geological fissure that kept water from seeping in and rotting the material. The tomb had any number of interesting features. DNA studies were done on all the individuals represented in the tomb—the first time, so far as we know, that this had even been done in an ancient Jerusalem tomb of this period. Textile analysis was done on the cloth—it turned out to be a mixture of linen and wool, not woven together but layered with a separate head piece. It had a distinctive 1st century weave—in contrast to the Shroud of Turin.  News articles from major sites like BBC and CNN concluded that this was yet more evidence that the Shroud was a fake. From the CNN article:  “And in addition, the weave of the shroud raises fresh doubts about the Shroud of Turin, which many people believe was used to wrap the body of Jesus. According to researchers involved in the excavation and subsequent testing, the recently discovered shroud lends more credible evidence that the Shroud of Turin does not date to Roman times when Jesus died but from a later period.” SOURCE: http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/meast/12/16/mideast.ancient.shroud/index.html However, it should be noted that none of the researchers actually engaged in much textile research, nor were they textile experts. They were simply taking the design and weave  of one 1st century burial cloth and concluding that all other 1st century burial cloths from that area would have a similar weave-pattern. That seems plausible at first, but it turns out that it is not true.  Hamburg textile expert Mechthild Flury-Lemberg is a recognized art historian and expert on the restoration of ancient textiles. She was able to examine and work on restoration/repair of the Shroud in 2001/2002 and published a book on it. She concludes on chapter of that book by saying:  “The seam that connects the 8 cm wide strip to the larger segment is not a simple one. The type of seam construction chosen clearly displays the intention to make the seam disappear on the face of the cloth as much as possible. This is another reason to believe that the Shroud was planned and produced by professionals. The sewing has been done from the reverse of the fabric and the stitches have been executed with great care and are barely noticeable on the face of the Shroud. The seam appears flat on the face and raised like a roll on the reverse of the fabric . Examples of this same kind of seam are again to be found among the textile fragments of Masada, already mentioned above. To conclude this chapter it can be said that the linen cloth of the Shroud of Turin does not display any weaving or sewing techniques which speak against its origin as a high quality product of the textile workers of the first century A.D.” SOURCE: Sindon by Mechthild Flury-Lemberg, pages 59-60, December 2001. John Tyerer, a chartered textile technologist, “It would be reasonable to conclude the linen textiles with ‘Z' twist yarns and woven 3/1 reversing twill similar to the Turin Shroud could have been produced in the first century Syria or Palestine.” (Source: The Shroud and The Controversy by Gary Habermas and Kenneth E. Stevenson, pg. 69)  4. The Shroud was myth-busted by John Calvin, among many others, who show us that The Scripture demands TWO burial cloths (one for the head, one for the body) and not ONE.  The Sudarium of Oviedo, long believed to be the "napkin" that was wrapped around Our Lord's head after His crucifixion and death, has been shown to have 120 "points of coincidence" with the Shroud, including the same AB blood type. Researchers assert, "The only possible conclusion is that the Oviedo sudarium covered the same face as the Turin Shroud." John Calvin:  4 Arguments against The Shroud:  THERE ARE MULTIPLE ‘SHROUDS' THAT CLAIM TO BE GENUINE.   It is now time to treat of the “sudary,” about which relic they have displayed their folly even more than in the affair of the holy coat; for besides the sudary of Veronica, which is shown in the Church of St Peter at Rome, it is the boast of several towns that they each possess one, as for instance Carcassone, Nice, Aix-la-Chapelle, Tréves, Besançon, without reckoning the fragments to be seen in various places.Now, I ask whether those persons were not bereft of their senses who could take long pilgrimages, at much expense and fatigue, in order to see sheets, of the reality of which there were no reasons to believe, but many to doubt; for whoever admitted the reality of one of these sudaries shown in so many places, must have considered the rest as wicked impostures set up to deceive the public by the pretence that they were each the real sheet in which Christ's body had been wrapped.  Answer: That counterfeits exist does not at all prove that there is no genuine article. Rather, a counterfeit shroud (or three) can be a fairly convincing proof that - at least at one time - there was a significant genuine shroud. 2. THE BIBLE DOES NOT RECORD A CLOTH WITH AN IMPRESSION ON IT.  St John, in his Gospel, relates even how St Peter, having entered the sepulchre, saw the linen clothes lying on one side, and the napkin that was about his head on the other; but he does not say that there was a miraculous impression of our Lord's figure upon these clothes, and it is not to be imagined that he would have omitted to mention such a work of God if there had been any thing of this kind. Answer: John 21:25 25 And there are also many other things that Jesus did, which, if they were written one by one, I suppose not even the world itself could contain the books that would be written.  This is a clear argument from silence. That doesn't mean it carries now weight - it does indeed carry some weight...but not enough to actually disprove the veracity of the Shroud. It should be pointed out that the miracle of the Shroud IF it happened and IF it was noticed by the ladies or the disciples would NOT have been all that significant in comparison to the resurrection of Jesus or the appearance of angels at the tomb. One can quite easily answer this argument from silence with another plausible argument from silence, and it is one I've not heard before. Consider how short, relatively speaking, each of the Gospels are - the Longest is Luke, checking in at just under 20000 words. In total, all four Gospels are approximately 65,000 words - not very lengthy. This is about the size of a shortish paper-back novel.  Given the relative brevity of these accounts, I find it remarkable that ALL FOUR Gospels mention the grave clothes of Jesus. Why? It would seem there would be little reason to record any details about the grave clothes unless...possibly...something remarkable happened to them. Now - is that argument enough to convince a skeptic? Of course not - because it is a very, very weak argument! So is Calvin's argument here that the Gospels would have mentioned it if something miraculous happened with the grave-wrapping of Jesus.  3. THE CLOTHES WERE GUARDED AND LEFT IN THE GRAVE.  Another point to be observed is, that the evangelists do not mention that either of the disciples or the faithful women who came to the sepulchre had removed the clothes in question, but, on the contrary, their account seems to imply that they were left there. Now, the sepulchre was guarded by soldiers, and consequently the clothes were in their power. Is it possible that they would have permitted the disciples to take them away as relics, since these very men had been bribed by the Pharisees to perjure themselves by saying that the disciples had stolen the body of our Lord ?  This one is not terribly difficult to answer. None of the gospels record the detail of removing the clothing, which could be because they did indeed remove it, but did not notice an image imprinted on it. It is highly unlikely they would have left cloth behind in the grave for reasons both sentimental and practical. As well, it should be noted that the Gospels do not record the presence of a guard at the tomb AFTER the resurrection of Jesus.  4. THE SHROUD IS ONE CLOTH AND THE BIBLE CLEARLY SHOWS THAT TWO CLOTHS SERVED TO BURY JESUS. I shall conclude with a convincing proof of the audacity of the Papists. Wherever the holy sudary is exhibited, they show a large sheet with the full-length likeness of a human body on it. Now, St John's Gospel, chapter nine teenth, says that Christ was buried according to the manner of the Jews ; and what was their custom ? This may be known by their present custom on such occasions, as well as from their books, which describe the ancient ceremony of interment, which was to wrap the body in a sheet, to the shoulders, and to cover the head with a separate cloth. This is precisely how the evangelist described it, saying, that St Peter saw on one side the clothes with which the body had been wrapped, and on the other the napkin from about his head. In short, either St John is a liar, or all those who boast of possessing the holy sudary are convicted of falsehood and deceit. * * This is probably Calvin's most well known argument contra the Shroud and the one that I hear most well-educated Protestants make when I bring up the Shroud to them That the Bible suggests a plurality of gravecloths, but the Shroud is only one cloth. On the surface, this might seem like a pretty compelling claim against the Shroud, but it is not quite as open and shut as Calvin would have us believe.  The most relevant passage in the Bible to this discussion is John 20:  6 Then, following him, Simon Peter came also. He entered the tomb and saw the linen cloths lying there. 7 The wrapping that had been on His head was not lying with the linen cloths but was folded up in a separate place by itself. Pretty clear, right - according to John's Gospel, there were not ONE but TWO burial cloths that wrapped Jesus. One, mentioned in vs 6 (Greek: ὀθόνια (othonia)/PLURAL)  and the other in verse 7 - a cloth wrapped around Jesus' head. (Greek: σουδάριον Soudarion)  Here's the thing, though - Many Shroud researchers, including Kenneth Stevenson, Gary Habermas, Ian Wilson, Barrie Schwortz and others contend that the Shroud shows evidence that there was a head cloth wrapped around the Shroud figure's neck and head - most likely to hold the jaw in place.  It would appear that the Sudarion was not a very significant part of the grave cloths that wrapped Jesus, as Matthew, Mark and Luke do not mention it in particular. Consider:  Mark 15:46 46 After he bought some fine linen, he took Him down and wrapped Him in the linen. Then he placed Him in a tomb cut out of the rock, and rolled a stone against the entrance to the tomb. Luke 23:53 and 24:12  52 He approached Pilate and asked for Jesus' body. 53 Taking it down, he wrapped it in fine linen and placed it in a tomb cut into the rock, where no one had ever been placed...12 Peter, however, got up and ran to the tomb. When he stooped to look in, he saw only the linen cloths. So he went home, amazed at what had happened. And Matthew 27: 59 So Joseph took the body, wrapped it in clean, fine linen, 60 and placed it in his new tomb, which he had cut into the rock. He left after rolling a great stone against the entrance of the tomb. So, the three synoptic gospels - Matthew, Mark and Luke - don't mention the head-wrapping, or the sudarion, but John does. Could this indicate that the sudarion was a smaller garment - one that would not have left much of an imprint on the Shroud? Possibly. But, again, I emphasize - The Shroud seems to allow for the existence of a head-scarf type wrapping, as well as ones around the wrists and feet. Rather than the Biblical account disproving The Shroud, it actually seems to describe it quite well. 5. THE ABUNDANCE OF FAKE RELICS PUT FORWARD BY MEDIEVAL CATHOLICS PROVES THE SHROUD IS ALSO FAKE.  St Honoratus has a body at Arles, and another at the island of Lerins, near Antibes.St Giles has a body at Toulouse, and a second in a town bearing his name in Languedoc.I could quote an infinite number of similar cases. I think that the exhibitors of these relics should at least have made some arrangement amongst themselves the better to conceal their barefaced impostures. Something of this sort was managed between the canons of Trêves and those of Liége about St Lambert's head. They compounded, for a sum of money, not to show publicly the head in their possession, in order to avoid the natural surprise of the public at the same relic being seen in two different towns situated so near to each other. But, as I have already remarked at the commencement of this treatise, the inventors of these frauds never imagined anyone could be found bold enough to speak out and expose their deceptions. This is really more of a subset of argument #1, and it is a fairly strong argument. However, it must be said that not every statement made by a dishonest person is a lie, and it is perfectly possible that not every relic claimed by the medieval Catholic church was fake. Most likely were. Were they ALL fake?  I'm not convinced they were.  So - Hopefully you've enjoyed this little bit of busting myths.  You can probably tell that I want the Shroud to be the real thing. There's several reasons for this, but none of them are apologetics-related. In other words, I don't want the Shroud to be the real burial cloth of Jesus because I think that would help prove the Bible to be reliable, or Jesus to be the resurrected Son of God. No article could prove such a thing. I do, however, want the Shroud to be real and genuine in the same sort of way that I want there to be a real Loch Ness Monster, or an extant Holy Grail somewhere out there. The world is a more interesting place with a legit Nessie swimming around in the cold waters of Scotland, and it is a more interesting place with real, tangible artifacts from the time of Jesus. Does that bias me? Possibly it does, and I don't want to enter this discussion biased. It does make me consider the claims of debunkers with a greater skepticism, however, and that might not be a bad thing.  I love John Calvin and am quite persuaded by his soteriological leanings in the realm of theology. That said, I believe his debunking of The Shroud is somewhat ham-handed, especially his contention that it is easily proved false by John 20 argument that the Bible says there were two different kinds of grave-clothes. I believe that there were indeed two different kinds of graveclothes used on Jesus - the Bible is explicit about this - there was a linen cloth that the body of Jesus was wrapped in, and a head covering (of some sort) that went along with it. That said, the Shroud appears to show evidence of there being a head scarf or head wrapping of some sort, and even if it didn't, one could easily see how the Shroud figure could have been wrapped in more than one cloth. I have little patience for people who believe the extraordinary simply because somebody told them it was so - gullibility is delightful in children, but unbecoming and unsophisticated in adults. I also have little patience for those who claim to debunk complex objects and possibilities with overly-simplistic and reductionist arguments. It is definitely possible - even plausible - that the Shroud of Turin is a medieval forgery, but the fact that John 20:7 mentions a sudarion that was on the head of Jesus does not necessarily debunk the authenticity of The Shroud in any sore of logical, philosophical or archaeological way.  Ok - that was a long episode. ONE more Shroud episode coming up - a summation of sorts. I hope to have 20-25 reasons to believe the Shroud could be authentic as well as a number of reasons to NOT believe in the authenticity of The Shroud. Thanks for being patient, and thanks for listening. Please leave a positive review if you are so inclined. 

Episode 4: Busting Shroud Myths, Part 2:  In one statement, John Walsh (His book The Shroud) observed: “The Shroud of Turin is either the most awesome and instructive relic of Jesus Christ in existence ... or it is one of the most ingenious, most unbelievably clever, products of the human mind and hand on record. It is one or the other; there is no middle ground.”  I did a recent - July, 2019 - survey of Baptist Pastors on The Shroud of Turin. Of those that responded to the poll - only 3.5 percent believed that the Shroud was the genuine burial cloth of Jesus. Half of them were agnostic - it was an interesting historical artifact that could not be verified, and just slightly under half 41 percent - believed the Shroud to be a forgery. I did a much larger poll in The Astonishing Legends facebook group - a group of people that are quite open and interested in paranormal things. In that survey, 132 out of 350 - 38 percent - believed the Shroud to be a hoax, which is very similar to the Baptist pastor's percentage. However, there were more true believers in the paranormal group, with 37 out of 350 - 11 percent - believing that the Shroud was the genuine burial cloth of Jesus. Shroud agnostics - believing the Shroud to be interesting, but unverifiable - represented 181 out of 350 respondents, just over half at 52 percent. Therefore, based on my informal surveys of a little over 400 people - roughly half of those respondents are just like me - uncertain about the Shroud. Over the next few episodes of this podcast, we are going to cover the history of the Shroud of Turin, and the most modern research and findings. Maybe by the time we are done, we'll all still be Shroud agnostics, but maybe - just maybe - we will together unearth enough information to change our minds and develop a clearer and more definitive view of one of the most controversial and noteworthy artifacts of church history.   Today, we are continuing to bust some myths about the Shroud. Next episode we will present 10-25 arguments in favor of the authenticity of the Shroud, some arguments against it, and likely conclude this series. Myth: The Shroud has always been owned by the Catholic Church, and they have officially endorsed it. In fact, it appears that the Catholic Church did not have official possession of The Shroud until 1983 when the royal House of Savoy conveyed ownership of The Shroud to The Holy See. If you remember your AP Modern European History, you might remember that the Savoys began as a small ruling family in the Alps northwest of Italy proper, and grew to become the dominant royal family in Italy, reigning over the country from 1861-1946, and also briefly ruled Spain in the 1800s. Although the Catholic church does not have an official position on The Shroud, several Popes and other church officials have commented favorably about it, including: Cardinal Ratzenberger/Pope Benedict, who called The Shroud, “A truly mysterious image, which no human artistry was capable of producing. In some inexplicable way, it appeared imprinted upon cloth and claimed to show the true face of Christ, the crucified and risen Lord".” (This was said when Ratzenberger was a Cardinal, and was not said officially/Ex Cathedra, so it was not considered an official endorsement of the whole church. Pius 11, 1936, “These are not pictures of the Blessed Virgin, it is true, but pictures that remind us of her as no other can. Since they are pictures of her Divine Son, and so, we can truly say, the most moving, loveliest, dearest ones that we can imagine."   What a strange quote - am I wrong that it seems to be suggesting that pictures of Mary, mother of Jesus, would be more remarkable than pictures of Jesus, the son of God? When any theology places more attention, emphasis and weight on Mary than they do on Jesus, this is where I have a massive difference with them. Source of quote “The Shroud, a Guide” by Gino Morreto. (I note here that I can't find this quote by Pius 11 elsewhere) Pope John Paul II  "Since it is not a matter of faith, the church has no specific competence to pronounce on these questions," the late Pope John Paul II said in 1998. ALSO:  “The Holy Shroud is the most splendid relic of the Passion and Resurrection [of Our Lord Jesus Christ]. We become what we contemplate... Why don't we contemplate the Icon of Icons: The Holy Face of Jesus!" Instead of icons made by man, let us venerate the greatest icon of all: The Holy Face of Jesus!” and also, “The Shroud is an image of God's love as well as of human sin ... The imprint left by the tortured body of the Crucified One, which attests to the tremendous human capacity for causing pain and death to one's fellow man, stands as an icon of the suffering of the innocent in every age." Most recently, Pope Francis commented on The Shroud during his first Easter address: Dear Brothers and Sisters, I join all of you gathered before the Holy Shroud, and I thank the Lord for offering us this opportunity, thanks also to new devices. We do not merely “look” if we are looking at it, it is not a simple look, but it is a form of veneration, a look of prayer and also it is a way of letting him look at us. This face has eyes that are closed, it is the face of one who is dead, and yet mysteriously he is watching us, and in silence he speaks to us. How is this possible? How is it that the faithful, like you, pause before this icon of a man scourged and crucified? It is because the Man of the Shroud invites us to contemplate Jesus of Nazareth.  This image, impressed upon the cloth, speaks to our heart and moves us to climb the hill of Calvary, to look upon the wood of the Cross, and to immerse ourselves in the eloquent silence of love. Let us therefore allow ourselves to be reached by this look, which is directed not to our eyes but to our heart. In silence, let us listen to what he has to say to us from beyond death itself. By means of the Holy Shroud, the unique and supreme Word of God comes to us: Love made man, incarnate in our history; the merciful love of God who has taken upon himself all the evil of the world to free us from its power.  This disfigured face resembles all those faces of men and women marred by a life which does not respect their dignity, by war and violence which afflict the weakest… And yet, at the same time, the face in the Shroud conveys a great peace; this tortured body expresses a sovereign majesty. It is as if it let a restrained but powerful energy within it shine through, as if to say: have faith, do not lose hope; the power of the love of God, the power of the Risen One overcomes all things. So, looking upon the Man of the Shroud, I make my own the prayer which Saint Francis of Assisi prayed before the Crucifix: Most High, glorious God, enlighten the shadows of my heart, and grant me a right faith, a certain hope and perfect charity, sense and understanding, Lord, so that I may accomplish your holy and true command. Amen. One Catholic commentator on St. Francis' speech above noted, “"The shroud draws [people] to the tormented face and body of Jesus and, at the same time, directs [people] toward the face of every suffering and unjustly persecuted person." This is condemning/damming the Shroud with faint praise and reinforces that Pope Francis really does think (wrongly) that the Shroud is just another fake icon.” I agree with that commentator - reading between the lines of St. Francis' pronunciation, speech, it is quite clear that he is either a Shroud Agnostic, or possibly even thinks it is a forgery.  So - it would seem that, in the Catholic church, the opinions on the authenticity of The Shroud are quite varied. It appears that more Catholic leaders consider The Shroud authentic than do leaders of other major religious groups, but the fact that The Vatican has stopped short of pronouncing the Turin Shroud should possibly give us pause. Do they have reason to suspect it is inauthentic - unreleased reasons? Possibly.  I'll say this - I don't understand religious veneration of objects. That seems completely contra to the clear teachings of the Old and New Testaments. Some branches of Christianity do this, but I think they are missing it. If The Shroud is authentic, then it is fascinating and wonderful, but not at all worthy of a single drop of religious devotion. If it is inauthentic, then it is less so.  Either way, it is a fascinating artifact.  If genuine, it is one of the great treasures of history and should be in our finest museum. Just don't worship it - it is a linen cloth. It didn't die for you. It has no power to save you. I see no indication that it holds any special significance to God. I own a collectible card with a verified piece of a jacket that Elvis Presley sang in and wore. If I had the whole jacket - what would that avail me? Would it help me dance better? Sing better? Become more famous? Could I bring it to Graceland and get free entry for wearing it? Could I take it to surviving members of Elvis' family, and ask to become an honorary Presley? None of those things. And The Shroud would get you less far in Heaven than The Presley jacket would get you in Graceland.  What should we do if it is inauthentic? Burn it, throw it away? Of course not! I still believe it belongs in our finest museums of art (as opposed to history) If it is art - it is incredible art. Mystifying and awe-inspiring.  Whatever it is - The Vatican isn't saying for sure one way, or another. They appear to be fans, but in a mostly unofficial capacity. Maybe Myth: The Shroud has been fully replicated. One of the major issues that has surrounded The Shroud from the beginning has been that, up until recently - even skeptics agreed that the way The Shroud was produced is unknown and thus postulating a medieval forgery was quite difficult, because nobody knew how a person could forge such an image with medieval equipment. There have been other ancient technologies that have been a mystery to modern man. Damascus steel, for instance, has not been inarguably replicated by modern blacksmiths. Roman Concrete has a kind of durability that modern concrete lacks, and scientists are only recently discovering some of the secrets to its longevity. Archimedes is said to have developed a sort of heat ray that was powerful enough to burn up boats from a significant distance away, but it is difficult for us to replicate such a ray using the technology that Archimedes would have had 200 years before the birth of Jesus. To that list, we should certainly add The Shroud, for if it is a forgery - it is an incredibly sophisticated, impressive and technologically advanced one. N.D. Wilson's amazing 2005 article in Christianity Today, entitled “Father Brown fakes The Shroud” is a must read for Shroud enthusiasts. Unfortunately, the only possible way to read it is to get your hands on that 2005 magazine in a library somewhere, or pay CT $30 for a digital subscription - which is what I did. 15 years ago N.D. Wilson supposedly figured out how one might fake The Shroud of Turin, and since that time, I have heard several people say or intimate that The Shroud had conclusively been proven a fraud with the 1-2 punch of #1 1988 medieval dating and #2 Wilson's reproduction. Wilson's method of duplicating The Shroud is ingenious. Basically, he and an artist friend painted a reverse image on a large pane of glass, and then had the sun shine through that image onto a Linen cloth over a period of several days. The sun bleached the cloth - lighter in areas of heavy paint and darker in areas of light paint. The resulting image does indeed look fairly authentic and Shroud-like to the naked eye. It does prove that it is possible, with the right equipment,  to put a negative-like image like The Shroud onto a linen cloth. Here are some objections that have been raised: 1. The cloth contains pollen from plants only found in Palestine - that would be difficult for a European forger to get. For one, he would have no idea that such a thing could potentially authenticate The Shroud. Wilson notes that the cloth could have been procured from a first century, Jewish grave, which I suppose is technically possible.  2. The figure in the Turin Shroud is pierced through his wrists, not through his hands. In recent years, it has been discovered that crucified people would have to have been pierced through their wrists (and not their hands) in order to actually be suspended from a cross. This does not at all contradict the Passion accounts in all four Gospels in the Bible, because the Greek word used for ‘hands' can also include the wrist area, unlike our English, which more clearly delineates between the two. Almost the totality of medieval art depicts the nails used during the crucifixion of Jesus being located in the hands, rather than the wrists. If the Shroud were a forgery, it is remarkable in the extreme that the forger would have known to include nail holes in the wrists, rather than in the hands. 3. I am not an expert on 1300s era glass technology, but some who are have argued that the kind of large and flat pane windows that would have been needed to sun-bleach the painted image of a man onto a large linen cloth would not have been available in the early medieval period. This is a fairly strong objection that I don't believe Wilson's article - as thorough as it is - addresses fully. 4. The figure on the Shroud has real wounds and real blood. This, of course, means that it was more than merely a sun-bleached image. Wilson contends that somebody had to have been murdered in order for forgers to make The Shroud using his method. Again, such a thing is technically possible. 5. It appears to some that the figure in The Shroud has coins in its eyes - and the type of coins appear to be first century coins that would have been commonly used in Israel during the time of Christ. That a medieval forger would be able to add such a detail is fairly astonishing. Of course, as with everything surrounding The Shroud, others (and Wilson, I presume) argue that there are no coin impressions in the eyes of the Shroud-figure. 6. Finally, if The Shroud is a forgery, those who painted the image on the glass had a remarkable and accurate knowledge of both the full details of Roman crucifixion and how the body would have responded to such crucifixion. Additionally, the anonymous forgers would have had to have a strong knowledge of anatomy and wound-effects, as the wounds on The Shroud figure are consistent with what modern medical technology would expect. Wilson contends that there were many medieval people with deep and accurate knowledge of anatomy, and the only reason we don't expect the forgers to have such knowledge is because we have a sort of bias against people from the past and assume they are unsophisticated and unintelligent. Such bias is certainly real, I will readily admit, though it does seem that medical history of the last 500 years demonstrates that medieval medicine and anatomy was indeed quite primitive. So - did Wilson definitively prove that medieval forgers could have produced The Shroud? Maybe, maybe not. Even Wilson admits, “I have not proved much. Or, I do not think that I have. Men and women who have believed in the Shroud will continue to believe. There is a fireman somewhere in Italy who risked his life to save the Shroud. I have a great deal of respect for that man. Perhaps I've given those who disbelieve more reason for noses lifted in the air, but I have not proved that the Shroud was faked. What I have done is crudely demonstrate that such an image could easily be produced in a matter of weeks by wicked men with no scruples, a little imagination, and a little more skill. The fact that it could have been faked does not mean that it was, though I believe it to have been. ”   I'll say this - Wilson's supposed forgers would have had to be: remarkably intelligent, gifted with art, well supplied with very rare (if existent) glass panes, and have an astonishing - for the time - knowledge of medicine, Roman history and human anatomy. Additionally, they would have had to be in possession of a cloth from Palestine, and possibly even pollen that had come from Palestine as well.  There have been other attempts to recreate the Shroud as well. In 2009 the University of Pavia organic chemistry professor and skeptic society member Luigi Garlaschelli produced a fairly convincing (at first glance) reproduction. He describes his attempt: "What you have now is a very fuzzy, dusty and weak image, Then for the sake of completeness I have added the bloodstains, the burns, the scorching because there was a fire in 1532." Garlaschelli says his work disproves the claims of the shroud's strongest supporters. "Basically the Shroud of Turin has some strange properties and characteristics that they say cannot be reproduced by human hands,"For example, the image is superficial and has no pigment, it looks so lifelike and so on, and therefore they say it cannot have been done by an artist." "The procedure is very simple. The artist took this sheet and put it over one of his assistants," "His good idea was to wrap the sheet over the person underneath because he didn't want to obtain an image that was too obviously a painting or a drawing, so with this procedure you get a strange image, Time did the rest,"  As you might imagine, there are several people who disagree that Garlaschelli has produced a convincing replica. Dr. Thibault Heimburger has written an extensive and scientific rebuttal of Garlaschelli's method, essentially arguing that it does not really duplicate all of the elements of the Shroud, but is only a superficial likeness. His paper, linked in the shownotes, concludes:  L.G. concluded: “We have also shown that pigments containing traces of acidic compounds can be artificially aged after the rubbing step (…) in such a way that, when the pigment is washed away, an image is obtained having the expected characteristics as the Shroud of Turin. In particular the image is pseudo negative, is fuzzy with half-tones, resides on the top-most fibers of the cloth, has some 3D embedded properties and does not fluoresce”. I think to the contrary that the image has none of these characteristics (except negativity and nonfluorescence). L.G. used a sophisticated method and a new interesting hypothesis, and he got the best Shroud-like image today. It is interesting to notice that even so, the properties of his image remain in fact very far from the fundamental properties of the Shroud image. 9 For the moment, the Shroud image remains unfakeable. Source: https://www.shroud.com/pdfs/thibault-lg.pdf Shroud blogger Stephen Jones has also debunked the replication of Garlaschelli: http://theshroudofturin.blogspot.com/2018/08/my-critique-of-borrini-m-garlaschelli-l.html  3. The complex herringbone twill pattern of the Shroud was not possible in the first century.  Some Shroud skeptics have speculated that the particular pattern of sewing used on the Shroud is too complex and advanced have been created in the first century.  In the Summer of 2000, archaeologists James Tabor and Shimon Gibson stumbled upon a freshly robbed first century grave outside of Jerusalem. Amazingly, the grave still had bodies in it, and one of them was encased in a somewhat intact first century shroud - the first shroud of that era that has been recovered in or around Jerusalem. Tabor writes of this discovery in a way that is very dismissive of the Turin Shroud:  Although 1st century cloth has been found at Masada and in caves in the Judean Desert, nothing of this sort had ever been found in Jerusalem. Apparently that niche, sealed with a blocking stone, had a geological fissure that kept water from seeping in and rotting the material. The tomb had any number of interesting features. DNA studies were done on all the individuals represented in the tomb—the first time, so far as we know, that this had even been done in an ancient Jerusalem tomb of this period. Textile analysis was done on the cloth—it turned out to be a mixture of linen and wool, not woven together but layered with a separate head piece. It had a distinctive 1st century weave—in contrast to the Shroud of Turin.  News articles from major sites like BBC and CNN concluded that this was yet more evidence that the Shroud was a fake. From the CNN article:  “And in addition, the weave of the shroud raises fresh doubts about the Shroud of Turin, which many people believe was used to wrap the body of Jesus. According to researchers involved in the excavation and subsequent testing, the recently discovered shroud lends more credible evidence that the Shroud of Turin does not date to Roman times when Jesus died but from a later period.” SOURCE: http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/meast/12/16/mideast.ancient.shroud/index.html However, it should be noted that none of the researchers actually engaged in much textile research, nor were they textile experts. They were simply taking the design and weave  of one 1st century burial cloth and concluding that all other 1st century burial cloths from that area would have a similar weave-pattern. That seems plausible at first, but it turns out that it is not true.  Hamburg textile expert Mechthild Flury-Lemberg is a recognized art historian and expert on the restoration of ancient textiles. She was able to examine and work on restoration/repair of the Shroud in 2001/2002 and published a book on it. She concludes on chapter of that book by saying:  “The seam that connects the 8 cm wide strip to the larger segment is not a simple one. The type of seam construction chosen clearly displays the intention to make the seam disappear on the face of the cloth as much as possible. This is another reason to believe that the Shroud was planned and produced by professionals. The sewing has been done from the reverse of the fabric and the stitches have been executed with great care and are barely noticeable on the face of the Shroud. The seam appears flat on the face and raised like a roll on the reverse of the fabric . Examples of this same kind of seam are again to be found among the textile fragments of Masada, already mentioned above. To conclude this chapter it can be said that the linen cloth of the Shroud of Turin does not display any weaving or sewing techniques which speak against its origin as a high quality product of the textile workers of the first century A.D.” SOURCE: Sindon by Mechthild Flury-Lemberg, pages 59-60, December 2001. John Tyerer, a chartered textile technologist, “It would be reasonable to conclude the linen textiles with ‘Z' twist yarns and woven 3/1 reversing twill similar to the Turin Shroud could have been produced in the first century Syria or Palestine.” (Source: The Shroud and The Controversy by Gary Habermas and Kenneth E. Stevenson, pg. 69)  4. The Shroud was myth-busted by John Calvin, among many others, who show us that The Scripture demands TWO burial cloths (one for the head, one for the body) and not ONE.  The Sudarium of Oviedo, long believed to be the "napkin" that was wrapped around Our Lord's head after His crucifixion and death, has been shown to have 120 "points of coincidence" with the Shroud, including the same AB blood type. Researchers assert, "The only possible conclusion is that the Oviedo sudarium covered the same face as the Turin Shroud." John Calvin:  4 Arguments against The Shroud:  THERE ARE MULTIPLE ‘SHROUDS' THAT CLAIM TO BE GENUINE.   It is now time to treat of the “sudary,” about which relic they have displayed their folly even more than in the affair of the holy coat; for besides the sudary of Veronica, which is shown in the Church of St Peter at Rome, it is the boast of several towns that they each possess one, as for instance Carcassone, Nice, Aix-la-Chapelle, Tréves, Besançon, without reckoning the fragments to be seen in various places.Now, I ask whether those persons were not bereft of their senses who could take long pilgrimages, at much expense and fatigue, in order to see sheets, of the reality of which there were no reasons to believe, but many to doubt; for whoever admitted the reality of one of these sudaries shown in so many places, must have considered the rest as wicked impostures set up to deceive the public by the pretence that they were each the real sheet in which Christ's body had been wrapped.  Answer: That counterfeits exist does not at all prove that there is no genuine article. Rather, a counterfeit shroud (or three) can be a fairly convincing proof that - at least at one time - there was a significant genuine shroud. 2. THE BIBLE DOES NOT RECORD A CLOTH WITH AN IMPRESSION ON IT.  St John, in his Gospel, relates even how St Peter, having entered the sepulchre, saw the linen clothes lying on one side, and the napkin that was about his head on the other; but he does not say that there was a miraculous impression of our Lord's figure upon these clothes, and it is not to be imagined that he would have omitted to mention such a work of God if there had been any thing of this kind. Answer: John 21:25 25 And there are also many other things that Jesus did, which, if they were written one by one, I suppose not even the world itself could contain the books that would be written.  This is a clear argument from silence. That doesn't mean it carries now weight - it does indeed carry some weight...but not enough to actually disprove the veracity of the Shroud. It should be pointed out that the miracle of the Shroud IF it happened and IF it was noticed by the ladies or the disciples would NOT have been all that significant in comparison to the resurrection of Jesus or the appearance of angels at the tomb. One can quite easily answer this argument from silence with another plausible argument from silence, and it is one I've not heard before. Consider how short, relatively speaking, each of the Gospels are - the Longest is Luke, checking in at just under 20000 words. In total, all four Gospels are approximately 65,000 words - not very lengthy. This is about the size of a shortish paper-back novel.  Given the relative brevity of these accounts, I find it remarkable that ALL FOUR Gospels mention the grave clothes of Jesus. Why? It would seem there would be little reason to record any details about the grave clothes unless...possibly...something remarkable happened to them. Now - is that argument enough to convince a skeptic? Of course not - because it is a very, very weak argument! So is Calvin's argument here that the Gospels would have mentioned it if something miraculous happened with the grave-wrapping of Jesus.  3. THE CLOTHES WERE GUARDED AND LEFT IN THE GRAVE.  Another point to be observed is, that the evangelists do not mention that either of the disciples or the faithful women who came to the sepulchre had removed the clothes in question, but, on the contrary, their account seems to imply that they were left there. Now, the sepulchre was guarded by soldiers, and consequently the clothes were in their power. Is it possible that they would have permitted the disciples to take them away as relics, since these very men had been bribed by the Pharisees to perjure themselves by saying that the disciples had stolen the body of our Lord ?  This one is not terribly difficult to answer. None of the gospels record the detail of removing the clothing, which could be because they did indeed remove it, but did not notice an image imprinted on it. It is highly unlikely they would have left cloth behind in the grave for reasons both sentimental and practical. As well, it should be noted that the Gospels do not record the presence of a guard at the tomb AFTER the resurrection of Jesus.  4. THE SHROUD IS ONE CLOTH AND THE BIBLE CLEARLY SHOWS THAT TWO CLOTHS SERVED TO BURY JESUS. I shall conclude with a convincing proof of the audacity of the Papists. Wherever the holy sudary is exhibited, they show a large sheet with the full-length likeness of a human body on it. Now, St John's Gospel, chapter nine teenth, says that Christ was buried according to the manner of the Jews ; and what was their custom ? This may be known by their present custom on such occasions, as well as from their books, which describe the ancient ceremony of interment, which was to wrap the body in a sheet, to the shoulders, and to cover the head with a separate cloth. This is precisely how the evangelist described it, saying, that St Peter saw on one side the clothes with which the body had been wrapped, and on the other the napkin from about his head. In short, either St John is a liar, or all those who boast of possessing the holy sudary are convicted of falsehood and deceit. * * This is probably Calvin's most well known argument contra the Shroud and the one that I hear most well-educated Protestants make when I bring up the Shroud to them That the Bible suggests a plurality of gravecloths, but the Shroud is only one cloth. On the surface, this might seem like a pretty compelling claim against the Shroud, but it is not quite as open and shut as Calvin would have us believe.  The most relevant passage in the Bible to this discussion is John 20:  6 Then, following him, Simon Peter came also. He entered the tomb and saw the linen cloths lying there. 7 The wrapping that had been on His head was not lying with the linen cloths but was folded up in a separate place by itself. Pretty clear, right - according to John's Gospel, there were not ONE but TWO burial cloths that wrapped Jesus. One, mentioned in vs 6 (Greek: ὀθόνια (othonia)/PLURAL)  and the other in verse 7 - a cloth wrapped around Jesus' head. (Greek: σουδάριον Soudarion)  Here's the thing, though - Many Shroud researchers, including Kenneth Stevenson, Gary Habermas, Ian Wilson, Barrie Schwortz and others contend that the Shroud shows evidence that there was a head cloth wrapped around the Shroud figure's neck and head - most likely to hold the jaw in place.  It would appear that the Sudarion was not a very significant part of the grave cloths that wrapped Jesus, as Matthew, Mark and Luke do not mention it in particular. Consider:  Mark 15:46 46 After he bought some fine linen, he took Him down and wrapped Him in the linen. Then he placed Him in a tomb cut out of the rock, and rolled a stone against the entrance to the tomb. Luke 23:53 and 24:12  52 He approached Pilate and asked for Jesus' body. 53 Taking it down, he wrapped it in fine linen and placed it in a tomb cut into the rock, where no one had ever been placed...12 Peter, however, got up and ran to the tomb. When he stooped to look in, he saw only the linen cloths. So he went home, amazed at what had happened. And Matthew 27: 59 So Joseph took the body, wrapped it in clean, fine linen, 60 and placed it in his new tomb, which he had cut into the rock. He left after rolling a great stone against the entrance of the tomb. So, the three synoptic gospels - Matthew, Mark and Luke - don't mention the head-wrapping, or the sudarion, but John does. Could this indicate that the sudarion was a smaller garment - one that would not have left much of an imprint on the Shroud? Possibly. But, again, I emphasize - The Shroud seems to allow for the existence of a head-scarf type wrapping, as well as ones around the wrists and feet. Rather than the Biblical account disproving The Shroud, it actually seems to describe it quite well. 5. THE ABUNDANCE OF FAKE RELICS PUT FORWARD BY MEDIEVAL CATHOLICS PROVES THE SHROUD IS ALSO FAKE.  St Honoratus has a body at Arles, and another at the island of Lerins, near Antibes.St Giles has a body at Toulouse, and a second in a town bearing his name in Languedoc.I could quote an infinite number of similar cases. I think that the exhibitors of these relics should at least have made some arrangement amongst themselves the better to conceal their barefaced impostures. Something of this sort was managed between the canons of Trêves and those of Liége about St Lambert's head. They compounded, for a sum of money, not to show publicly the head in their possession, in order to avoid the natural surprise of the public at the same relic being seen in two different towns situated so near to each other. But, as I have already remarked at the commencement of this treatise, the inventors of these frauds never imagined anyone could be found bold enough to speak out and expose their deceptions. This is really more of a subset of argument #1, and it is a fairly strong argument. However, it must be said that not every statement made by a dishonest person is a lie, and it is perfectly possible that not every relic claimed by the medieval Catholic church was fake. Most likely were. Were they ALL fake?  I'm not convinced they were.  So - Hopefully you've enjoyed this little bit of busting myths.  You can probably tell that I want the Shroud to be the real thing. There's several reasons for this, but none of them are apologetics-related. In other words, I don't want the Shroud to be the real burial cloth of Jesus because I think that would help prove the Bible to be reliable, or Jesus to be the resurrected Son of God. No article could prove such a thing. I do, however, want the Shroud to be real and genuine in the same sort of way that I want there to be a real Loch Ness Monster, or an extant Holy Grail somewhere out there. The world is a more interesting place with a legit Nessie swimming around in the cold waters of Scotland, and it is a more interesting place with real, tangible artifacts from the time of Jesus. Does that bias me? Possibly it does, and I don't want to enter this discussion biased. It does make me consider the claims of debunkers with a greater skepticism, however, and that might not be a bad thing.  I love John Calvin and am quite persuaded by his soteriological leanings in the realm of theology. That said, I believe his debunking of The Shroud is somewhat ham-handed, especially his contention that it is easily proved false by John 20 argument that the Bible says there were two different kinds of grave-clothes. I believe that there were indeed two different kinds of graveclothes used on Jesus - the Bible is explicit about this - there was a linen cloth that the body of Jesus was wrapped in, and a head covering (of some sort) that went along with it. That said, the Shroud appears to show evidence of there being a head scarf or head wrapping of some sort, and even if it didn't, one could easily see how the Shroud figure could have been wrapped in more than one cloth. I have little patience for people who believe the extraordinary simply because somebody told them it was so - gullibility is delightful in children, but unbecoming and unsophisticated in adults. I also have little patience for those who claim to debunk complex objects and possibilities with overly-simplistic and reductionist arguments. It is definitely possible - even plausible - that the Shroud of Turin is a medieval forgery, but the fact that John 20:7 mentions a sudarion that was on the head of Jesus does not necessarily debunk the authenticity of The Shroud in any sore of logical, philosophical or archaeological way.  Ok - that was a long episode. ONE more Shroud episode coming up - a summation of sorts. I hope to have 20-25 reasons to believe the Shroud could be authentic as well as a number of reasons to NOT believe in the authenticity of The Shroud. Thanks for being patient, and thanks for listening. Please leave a positive review if you are so inclined. 

Albert Einstein. Marie Curie. Paul Daniels. All incredible scientists whose insights and incredible brains pushed humankind to ever greater heights. Add to this absolutely legendary braintrust two further names, James Of Ramsden and Sam O'Herlihy AKA The Gawddarn TickyOff Boyz. The reason their names deserve to sit alongside the science nerds named above? This episode of TickyOff. Who else could conceive of a ghost named Derek? Who else could open a sandwich shop yesterday? Who else could slag off a beloved steak based restaurateur this much? Who else can update the humble fork to a new and spectacular level? Get those wacky Nobel folk on the phone, The TickyOff Boyz just ordered a few Peace Prizes and a bag of medals. To go. Wake up. This week esteemed baker, writer, photographer and general Flour Lord Dan Lepard is here. Dan creates mouth sounds for your ears on topics ranging from learning before the internet, eating at other people's houses, wanting more anger in food writing and why restaurants should maybe stop trying to bake their own damn bread. The three mouths available for this week's episode also get into the problem with ‘cucina povera', food as a psychedelic drug, the world marmalade awards and the genealogy of classic restaurant dishes. I get it, this much incredible content has probably already melted your grey brains out through your earholes but guess what? There's even more packed in here, like a porky farce in a chicken's chest cavity. Sam thinks he might have seen the Turin Shroud, Dan visits a number of Turin adult cinemas and James wonders on a decision with planet destroying possibilities: Is it time for them to quit The Tickyoff for good?…….. This week's episode is sponsored by the really lovely and kind people at dropwine.co.uk

Jessica Spitz, writing recently for NBCNews.com, basically asserts that science has proven - again and again - that The Shroud of Turin is conclusively a fake. The centerpiece of her argument is the carbon dating of The Shroud. She writes:  Forensic scientists have once again concluded that the Shroud of Turin, supposedly the burial cloth Jesus was wrapped in after his crucifixion, was artificially created. The Shroud, which is kept in the Cathedral of St. John the Baptist in Turin, Italy, has long been a subject of controversy within the Catholic community. Believers say its stains are the blood of Jesus, while others have questioned whether the stains are even blood at all. The new research is in line with numerous previous studies that have concluded that the Shroud is not authentic. Earlier carbon dating work has determined that it dates to 1260 to 1390; Jesus is generally believed to have died in the year 33. And a blue ribbon panel called the Turin Commission concluded in 1979 that stains on the garment are likely pigments, not blood, while textiles experts and art historians have suggested that the materials and images are not from the right era.  SOURCE  Reading the article, it sounds very, very definitive. Science has CERTAINLY concluded in many ways that The Shroud is a fake, and this new study just adds more evidence. So - let's take a look at some of these definite proofs and consider whether or not they can convince us that The Shroud is a forgery. Spitz summarizes how this particular 2018 scientific inquiry ‘proved' the Shroud of Turin false in this way:  In the most recent study, forensic scientists used blood pattern analysis to investigate the arm and body position necessary to yield the pattern seen on the Shroud. Using a living volunteer and a mannequin to model several positions, researchers determined that the patterns were consistent with multiple poses, which contradicts with the theory that Jesus was buried in the cloth lying down. In other words, reading between the lines, the researchers concluded that the blood splatter pattern on The Shroud conclusively could NOT have come from a victim that was lying still, but one that was moved about some. Think about it for a moment. Does the fact that the figure on The Shroud shows evidence of being moved AFTER being wrapped in the burial cloth indicate that The Shroud itself must be a forgery? I'm not sure how one could come to that conclusion - especially considering the Biblical testimony that the followers of Jesus took steps to prepare the body of Jesus for permanent burial. As well, we see clear evidence in Matthew that the body of Jesus was wrapped in linen AND THEN MOVED into the tomb. Surely such a thing could account for “multiple poses.” Consider:  So Joseph took the body, wrapped it in clean, fine linen, 60 and placed it in his new tomb, which he had cut into the rock. He left after rolling a great stone against the entrance of the tomb. 61 Mary Magdalene and the other Mary were seated there, facing the tomb. (Matthew 27:59-61) So - does the fact that the Shroud Figure had “multiple poses” conclusively prove that The Shroud is a fake? Of course not - Scripture is clear the body of Jesus was moved, which could certainly account for those multiple poses. But don't take my word for it. Victor Weedn, chairman of forensic sciences as George Washington University in Washington, D.C., said in an interview that while the experimental approach seemed to make sense, he was "skeptical of this analysis," saying there was no reason to believe that the body could not have been moved while being transported. "We're not dealing with things we really know about," Weedn said. "We just don't know if this cloth was laid on someone who just laid there or was wrapped around the body or moved some before being put in a particular place." Weedn is an Ivy League professor with a Juris doctorate and a Medical doctorate - a brilliant man. I think we can consider this particular scientific study conclusively debunked. As a side note, I believe these passages about the burial of Jesus and the preparation of His body in particular are quite interesting relative to the resurrection of Jesus, and I've written about it fairly extensively in my book on the resurrection Easter: Fact or Fiction. We often assume the ancient followers of Jesus were quite gullible and not at all sophisticated - that they would have glibly accepted the  idea of a person coming back to life because they would not have understood it to be scientifically impossible. However, biblical evidence clearly contradicts this - the disciples of Jesus DID NOT expect Him to return. They hid out and mourned. An expensive linen cloth was used to wrap the body of Jesus - strange behavior if one expected him to return in a few short days - why waste the cloth? The female followers of Jesus DID NOT expect Him to rise from the dead - they came to prepare His body for permanent entombment. Even Mary Magdalene, upon seeing the open tomb of Jesus did not assume resurrection, but asked where His lifeless body had been moved to. The followers of Jesus did not expect the resurrection, despite Jesus' claims that He would return from the dead.  Probably the biggest single evidence against the authenticity of The Shroud - at least in most people's mind - is the results of the 1988 radiocarbon dating, which concluded that the fabric was from the 1300s, give or take 200 years. If that conclusion was accurate, then The Shroud would very obviously be a medieval forgery of some sort. I believe that the number of congruences between the figure in The Shroud and the biblical account of the passion, suffering and crucifixion of Jesus are too numerous for one to assume that the figure in The Shroud is anyone but Jesus, and thus - if the cloth is from the 1300s, then The Shroud is an intentional forgery meant to mislead. The trouble is, that there is much debate - scientific, theological, and philosophical - about that carbon dating figure. In one of the groups mentioned above, we can see the two polarizing opinions that people have adopted based on this carbon dating:  N.S:  “No one has been able to replicate how it was made, which is fascinating. And one of the fiber samples taken for carbon dating turns out to have been a repaired section so that accounts toward the dating inconsistencies. I've always been interested in the Shroud and it's physical characteristics. On the other hand, A.M. wrote: I feel like the “carbon dating was from a repaired section” thing has been taken as gospel (no pun intended) without looking at the evidence against that theory; among them the fact that the weaving is not typical of judaean fabrics of the early first century CE, and that several experts including a textile restoration specialist have said that the section from which the sample is taken is microscopically indistinguishable from the rest of the cloth, which is simply not possibly if the repair were undertaken in the time to which the sample dates. There have been many, MANY attempts to prove the 14th century origin date wrong, and all of them have been failures or have been ginned up with test results that were not able to be duplicated and independently verified.  A survey of headlines on major websites shows a similar pattern: Confident and contradictory claims that appear to be irrefutable. For instance:  Life Site News: Scientists debunk theory that Shroud of Turin is medieval ‘hoax' NBC News:  Forensic research (once again) suggests the Shroud of Turin is fake.  BBC News: Turin Shroud Older than Thought. Independent.Co.Uk: 628-year-old fake news: Scientists prove Turin Shroud not genuine (again) USA Today: New Test Dates Shroud of Turin to Era of Christ. Reuters: New Forensic Tests Suggest Shroud of Turin is a Fake.  History.com: Shroud of Turin Isn't Jesus' Burial Cloth, Claims Forensic Study Phys.org - Study of Data from 1988 Shroud of Turin testing suggests mistakes.  Dozens - or more - studies have sought to undermine the 1988 C14 tests. Some have been quite convincing...other, a bit less so. For instance, from a Churchmilitant.com article:  “A theory surfaced in 2014 that the earthquake when Our Lord died on the Cross might have impacted the Shroud's radiocarbon results.  Radiocarbon dating is based on measuring radioactive decay, the process by which atoms lose neutrons. The group of scientists in Italy made the case that the tremors on Good Friday possibly caused emissions of neutrons from the earth's crust, impacting atoms in the Shroud's fibers. If atoms in the Shroud were affected by neutron emissions, this would massively skew the results of radiocarbon dating.” Source   Are you confused yet? I sure am. I think it is obvious that scientific consensus isn't 100 percent behind the hoax or genuine side of The Shroud debate. So - what's the story on that C-14 dating that conclusively and supposedly proved The Shroud was faked? Here's what happened: (FROM WIKIPEDIA SO AS TO BE NEUTRAL)  On April 17, 1988, ten years after the S.T.U.R.P. project had been initiated, British Museum scientific director Michael Tite published in Nature[31] the "final" protocol: the laboratories at Oxford, Zürich, and Tucson would perform the test; they would each receive one sample weighing 40 mg., sampled from a single portion of weave; the laboratories would each receive two control samples, clearly distinguishable from the shroud sample; samples would be delivered to the laboratories' representatives in Turin; each test would be filmed; there would be no comparison of results (nor communication) between laboratories until the results be certified as definitive, univocal, and complete; Samples were taken on April 21, 1988, in the Cathedral by Franco Testore, an expert on weaves and fabrics, and by Giovanni Riggi di Numana. Testore performed the weighting operations while Riggi made the actual cut. Also present were Cardinal Ballestrero, four priests, archdiocese spokesperson Luigi Gonella, photographers, a camera operator, Michael Tite of the British Museum, and the labs' representatives. As a precautionary measure, a piece twice as big as the one required by the protocol was cut from the Shroud; it measured 81 mm × 21 mm (3.19 in × 0.83 in). An outer strip showing coloured filaments of uncertain origin was discarded.[37] The remaining sample, measuring 81 mm × 16 mm (3.19 in × 0.63 in) and weighing 300 mg, was first divided in two equal parts, one of which was preserved in a sealed container, in the custody of the Vatican, in case of future need. The other half was cut into three segments, and packaged for the labs in a separate room by Tite and the archbishop. The lab representatives were not present at this packaging process, in accordance with the protocol. The labs were also each given three control samples.  In a well-attended press conference on October 13, Cardinal Ballestrero announced the official results, i.e. that radio-carbon testing dated the shroud to a date of 1260-1390 AD, with 95% confidence.  (SOURCE: Wikipedia)  So - that's that, right? 95 percent confidence by three different labs that The Shroud was from the 12-1300s. End of story. The radiocarbon dating slammed the door on The Shroud's authenticity for many, many people. One of the foremost Shroud researchers and proponents, who was himself a member of the original STURP team of scientists who studied the Turin Shroud in the late 1970s, is a man named Barrie Schwortz. He runs Shroud.com, which is probably the most visited site devoted to the TS on the internet. In commenting on the results of the dating, Schortz describes the reaction by Shroud devotees:  “As soon as the dating results were leaked to the press, the world of the Shroud came to a complete and sudden halt. Many researchers took this as the final word and disengaged completely. The years of hard work by the STURP team and the many papers they published in the peer-reviewed scientific literature was immediately disregarded and ultimately, forgotten. These were indeed the bleak years of Shroud research.” (SOURCE)  Except, there were objections raised about the radiocarbon testing almost from the beginning. Actually, to be fair, there were objections raised YEARS before the testing actually took place. Professor William Meacham is an archaeologist who writes articles with titles like, “High-throughput field phenotyping using hyperspectral reflectance and partial least squares regression (PLSR) reveals genetic modifications to photosynthetic capacity” and “Determination of the original firing temperature of ceramics from Non Nok Tha and Phimai, Thailand” Before The Shroud was carbon-dated, Meacham cautioned against letting the results be the end-all determinant of the authenticity or lack thereof of Shroud. In 1986, he wrote:  “In recent discussions on the possible authenticity of the Turin Shroud, the question of the value of C-14 dating persistently recurs. Virtually all researchers agree that the test should be performed; sufficiently small samples can now be measured so that the appearance of the relic is not altered. Several C-14 dating proposals are now under consideration by the Archbishop of Turin. In contrast to these positive developments, however, there appears to be an unhealthy consensus approaching the level of dogma among both scientific and lay commentators, that C-14 dating will "settle the issue once and for all time." This attitude sharply contradicts the general perspective of field archaeologists and geologists, who view possible contamination as a very serious problem in interpreting the results of radiocarbon measurement. In this paper I shall examine the issue of the reliability of C-14 testing to produce an "absolute date" on the linen sheet known as the Holy Shroud of Turin and believed by some to be the gravecloth of Christ...Reviewing recent Shroud literature of all persuasions, I find little awareness of the limitations of the C-14 method, an urge to "date first and ask questions later," and a general disregard for the close collaboration between field and laboratory personnel which is the ideal in archaeometric projects. Regarding the Shroud, consultations should take place among archeologists, historians, conservationists, cellulose chemists and of course radiocarbon scientists in order to formulate a specific C-14 sampling and dating procedure. As I shall endeavor to demonstrate below, the radiocarbon measurement of the Shroud is a complex issue, and the inclusion of all relevant expertise is highly important.”  Later, Dr. Meacham concludes his long and excellent paper on this issue, “My own tentative proposal for dating the Shroud is that at least five samples be taken: 1) a single thread from the middle of the cloth, between dorsal and ventral images; 2) a small piece cut just in from the edge next to the site of Raes' piece I; 3) a piece of the charred cloth; 4) a piece cut from the side strip next to the site of Raes' 11; 5) a piece of the backing cloth sewn on in 1534. The principal samples would be 1 and 2, with 3 possibly confirmatory; 4 would hopefully clarify the question of an added side strip: 5 would be a control for modern contamination. All samples would be subjected to elaborate pretreatment, SEM screening and testing (microchemical, mass spectrometry, micro-Raman) for impurities or intrusive substances such as higher order hydrocarbons, inorganic and organic carbonates. Samples 2-5 would be measured by both gas proportional and accelerator counting. Samples of a least 3sq. cm each would be required for intensive pretreatment (likely to sacrifice a portion of the sample), measurement of fractions, and controls for micro-testing. A total of 12 sq. cm. or so of the relic itself would thus be required. Selvage edges would be avoided, as in the British Museum inter-comparison experiment (Burleigh et al 1985:3). In view of the myriad contamination possibilities, at least two fractions of each sample should be measured, by each counting method, if possible. In the end, with luck, we would have at least two or three radiocarbon ages in good agreement and possibly, quite possibly, indicative of the true calendrical age of the Shroud linen. That is all we would be justified in claiming.  The existence of significant indeterminant errors can never be excluded from any age determination. No method is immune from giving grossly incorrect datings when there are non-apparent problems with the samples originating in the field. The results illustrated [in this paper] show that this situation occurs frequently. Regardless of the C-14 result, evidence from other sources would of course remain of considerable importance in the overall evaluation of the age and origin of the relic. A C-14 age later than the first century would not of course constitute scientific proof of the inauthenticity of the Shroud, since radiocarbon dating is a based on a number of unverifiable assumptions -- the most important in this context being that the carbon extracted from the sample is indeed identical with the carbon absorbed from the environment when the sample was alive. But of course C-14 measurement does usually provide a reliable indication of true calendrical age.”  SOURCE (CLICK HERE) Over the years, many have raised objections to the method and conclusions of the test, which most certainly did not follow the protocols that Professor Meacham called for. The main objections raised included the possibility of contamination of the sample (due to more than one fire that The Shroud was exposed to - as well as the touch of hundreds/thousands of medieval hand), as well as the location of the sample being near the edge of the garment - an area some have thought to be part of a medieval repair.  Think of it like this: Have you heard of the Ship of Theseus?  It's one of the more fascinating thought experiments and it has been around for thousands of years, at least since 500 years before the time of Jesus. So - who was Theseus? He was the possibly mythical founding king of Athens. The thought experiment goes like this: Let's say Theseus had a great battle ship that he won some big battles in. Over the years, the ship has to be repaired some planks are damaged, the mast is broken, rot sets in, etc. After a few decades, due to the nature of wood, fabric and rope (and the corrosive effect of salty winds and oceans) - all of the original parts of Theseus' ship has been replaced. Not all at once, of course - but over the years, bit by bit. The philosophical question is this: Is it still Theseus' ship despite the fact that there is not a single original part left??  The second part of the thought experiment is to consider another hypothetical. What if Theseus kept in a storehouse EVERY single part of his boat that was replaced. Further still, what if somebody was able to restore and repair every single former part of the ship, and then completely rebuilt it - using the original parts and to the exact specifications of the original. Which of the two boats is more the original ship of Theseus?? Well, that's not the Bible mystery we are here to solve today, but it does serve as an oblique introduction to one of the major issues with testing The Shroud.  - What if The Ship of Theseus - or a similar ship - was somehow in service for hundreds of years - dating back to an indeterminate time. Perhaps some modern scientists would want to radiocarbon date the ship to test how old it was. That test would only be accurate if one took a sample from an original plank on the ship. If the ship was originally built in 1525, but then repaired in multiple places in 1875, and the sample taken for the carbon test was from a repaired plank, then one could quickly see how the c14 test would fail to ascertain the real age of the ship, right? Well, that is exactly what many claim has happened with the 1988 radiocarbon dating of The Shroud. Many claim that the sample tested was either from a section subject to some unknown medieval era repairs, or it was tainted by a medieval fire, or medieval hands, etc. This is why professor Meacham argued in 1986 that radiocarbon dating should not be the only way that the date of The Shroud was determined.  A 2000 study by Joseph Marino and his wife Sue Benford found interesting results based on x-ray analysis of the TS sample sites. They found what they believe to be a seam in the sampled area of the fabric which is indicative of a repair made much later than when the cloth was originally made. The seam they found is diagonal and runs through the entire strip of the piece of fabric that was divided into three parts and sent to three different labs. Marino and Benford indicate that the variance of roughly 200 years found in the c14 dating of Arizona, Zurich and Oxford seems to correspond to the location of this diagonal seam, which caused the researchers to theorize that the repair was skewing the results of the dating test, and causing the three results to fall outside of the bounds of date agreement that statistical analysis would expect for three tests of the same exact cloth. Interestingly, after my first episode on the T.S., Mr Marino contacted me and sent some very helpful research my way.  Raymond Rogers was a chemist and thermal analysis expert who served for nearly 40 years at the Los Alamos National Laboratory. He was a high ranking military analyst as well, and wrote and edited numerous scientific journal articles. Rogers was the head of chemical analysis for the original STURP team that studied The Shroud. After the 1988 c14 testing, Rogers was initially convinced for years by the results of the test, but began to reconsider those results after reviewing the paper mentioned previously by Joe Marino and Sue Benford. Rogers reexamined some fiber samples from the Turin Shroud in order to debunk the debunkers. He was surprised to find clear microscopic evidence that a cotton patch had been skillfully weaved into the original linen of the tested part of the Turin Shroud. Rogers also noted that x-ray fluorescent photography done of The Shroud demonstrated that the part of the cloth where the sample was taken glowed a different color than the rest of the cloth, which would likely be an indicator that different fabric was contained in the tested sample. In 2005, shortly before his death from cancer, Rogers wrote a scientific paper on The Shroud for the chemistry journal Thermochimica Acta that contained a detailed chemical analysis of The Shroud fibers, (with pictures) and a discussion of the likely contamination of the sampled section of the cloth. The paper concludes: “If the shroud had been produced between a.d. 1260 and 1390, as indicated by the radiocarbon analyses, lignin should be easy to detect. A linen produced in a.d. 1260 would have retained about 37% of its vanillin in 1978. The Raes threads, the Holland cloth, and all other medieval linens gave the test for vanillin wherever lignin could be observed on growth nodes. The disappearance of all traces of vanillin from the lignin in the shroud indicates a much older age than the radiocarbon laboratories reported...Because the shroud and other very old linens do not give the vanillin test, the cloth must be quite old. It is thus very unlikely that the linen was produced during medieval times...The combined evidence from chemical kinetics, analytical chemistry, cotton content, and pyrolysis proves that the material from the radiocarbon area of the shroud is significantly different from that of the main cloth. The radiocarbon sample was thus not part of the original cloth and is invalid for determining the age of the shroud. Because the storage conditions through the centuries are unknown, a more accurate age determination will require new radiocarbon analyses with several fully characterized and carefully prepared samples” SOURCE More recently, Summer of 2019, a peer reviewed academic journal called Archaeometry, produced by The University of Oxford, published a very interesting article that called into question the results of the c14 dating of The Shroud. If you aren't familiar, Archaeometry “is an international research journal covering the application of the physical and biological sciences to archaeology and the history of art. The topics covered include dating methods, artifact studies, mathematical methods, remote sensing techniques, conservation science, environmental reconstruction, biological anthropology and archaeological theory.” An international team of researchers led by French researcher Tristan Casabianca obtained the raw results from the original 1988 radiocarbon testing and did some significant statistical analysis of those results, and also looked for other possible issues. In a recent interview with the French magazine L'Homme Nouveau (The New Man), Casabianca summarized the findings of his team's study:  “In 1989, the results of the shroud dating were published in the prestigious journal Nature: between 1260 and 1390 with 95% certainty. But for thirty years, researchers have asked the laboratories for raw data. These have always refused to provide them. In 2017, I submitted a legal request to the British Museum, which supervised the laboratories. Thus, I had access to hundreds of unpublished pages, which include these raw data. With my team, we conducted their analysis. Our statistical analysis shows that the 1988 carbon 14 dating was unreliable: the tested samples are obviously heterogeneous, [showing many different dates], and there is no guarantee that all these samples, taken from one end of the sheet, are representative of the whole fabric. It is therefore impossible to conclude that the shroud of Turin dates from the Middle Ages.”  The paper itself is incredibly complex, and very heavy on a type of statistical analysis that is well over my head in most places. I've read and reread portions of that paper, though, and I feel like I understand it well enough to note that it raises some very troubling concerns about the results of the 1988 dating. Some of those concerns include:  Significant contamination of various pieces of the very small Shroud samples sent to each laboratory. The paper notes: “ Despite the close visual inspection of the TS by textile experts and the loss of weight of approximately 25% after the cutting (FOIA 2017, 162), Oxford found and removed several textile fibres of different colours, including one identified by a textile laboratory to be cotton, ‘possibly of Egyptian origin and quite old' (Anonymous 1988; FOIA 2017, 104). Oxford mentions that in one subsample there may have been ‘glass', perhaps sodium Radiocarbon dating of the Turin Shroud 7 © 2019 University of Oxford, Archaeometry ••, •• (2019) ••–•• chloride crystals (Wilson 1995, 18; FOIA 2017, 103). In the original draft, Arizona indicated that ‘a red thread and three blue threads' were removed from one of their subsamples (Turin Shroud Archive). In 2010, Arizona recognized that they had kept one piece of an undated TS subsample. On this subsample, the authors identified foreign material invisible to the naked eye, including a blue substance described as ‘apparently wax' (Freer-Waters and Jull 2010, 1522) and some cotton fibres. Zürich may have found an assortment of debris (Marinelli 2012, 26).” 2. Significant statistical differences between the raw dates obtained by the three labs that each tested a similar sample of the Turin Shroud. Recall that a very small piece of the TS was cut off and sent to three different labs. One in Arizona, one in Zurich and one in Oxford. Supposedly all three labs returned the same results for the dating of the TS, but according to Casabianca's statistical survey of the raw results, that claim is not true. He shows that there was significant statistical variance between the results obtained by the three labs, especially the Arizona lab. Now, I'm going to read a part of the paper where Casabianca's team makes this claim, but I do not claim to fully understand what's going on here: The analysis of the Arizona counts showed further interesting aspects. The eight counts of the Arizona data were categorized into four groups (A1 and A2, A3 and A4, A5 and A6, and A7 and A8) because they were executed on the same day using the same standards. The non-parametric Kruskal–Wallis test (Table 5; see also Table S10 for the assumptions) shows highly statistically significant differences even if we consider the eight counts both separately and gathered (p-values < 0.0001). The results show that the different assessments produced by the same laboratory (raw vs. Nature) are not statistically significant, whereas the analysis of the raw radiocarbon dates confirmed that the different laboratories produced different assessments and that these differences are, in most cases, statistically significant. That might be the most understandable section out of the paper's discussion of the statistical anomalies between the dates obtained by the three labs. Ultimately, I take it that Casabianca's work is demonstrating that the lab results are different enough that something must account for the difference - contamination, medieval repairs, botched handling, etc. 3. The dates obtained by the labs on the small samples they were given, appear to vary throughout the length of the sample, rather than remain the same. In other words, different parts of the small sample size tested by each lab test out with a statistically significant different date, a result which could be explained by contamination, and many other factors. The paper makes this claim about the non-homogenous results: Moreover, our statistical analysis of the raw data supports the conclusion of Riani et al. (2013). They used the known locations of the tested samples in each laboratory and showed a significant decrease in the radiocarbon age as one gets closer to the centre of the sheet (in length, from the tested corner). This variability of the Nature radiocarbon dates in a few centimetres, if linearly extrapolated to the opposite side of the TS, would lead to a dating in the future. So - those are some significant scientific issues raised with the 1988 dating in this paper, and many other scientific studies are cited which reveal similar problems with the dating. Casabianca's paper concludes this way: “The discussed statistical analysis reinforced the argument against the goodness of the radiocarbon dating of the TS, suggesting the presence of serious incongruities among the raw measurements. Our results, which are compatible with those previously reported by many other authors (Brunati 1996; Van Haelst 1997, 2002; Riani et al. 2013), strongly suggest that homogeneity is lacking in the data. The measurements made by the three laboratories on the TS sample suffer from a lack of precision which seriously affects the reliability of the 95% AD 1260–1390 interval. The statistical analyses, supported by the foreign material found by the laboratories, show the necessity of a new radiocarbon dating to compute a new reliable interval. This new test requires, in an interdisciplinary research, a robust protocol. Without this re-analysis, 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. This is not a lightweight attack on the credibility of the 1988 radiocarbon dating of The Shroud. If you are a committed and convinced Shroud-skeptic, then I have no beef with you, since I am currently a Shroud-agnostic. However, if you have based your assured skepticism primarily on the radiocarbon dating of The Shroud, then I would encourage you to sit down and try to read Casabianca's paper. It's not an easy read in the least, and you might need some Tylenol, but i believe it does poke significant holes in the credibility of that 1988 test - enough holes that I believe that the test represents minor evidence - at best - against the genuineness of The Shroud, rather than conclusive evidence. So - has 1988 radiocarbon dating conclusively shown that The Shroud was a medieval hoax? I believe that scientists (textile experts, statisticians, chemists, historians and archaeologists) have raised enough objections with the method and the conclusions of the original 1988 test to say, ‘no.' This, of course, does NOT prove that The Shroud is the original burial cloth of Jesus, nor does it prove that The Shroud was produced originally in the first century. What it does suggest - strongly, I'd say - is that we need an updated radiocarbon testing of The Shroud. One that utilizes fabric far closer to the middle of The Shroud, and one that uses fabric that is checked and rechecked for contaminants, repairs and reweaves prior to the testing. What does The Vatican have to lose here? I realize that they want to preserve the Turin Shroud as well as possible - it is a priceless artifact whether it is genuine or not. However, I believe the loss of a small portion of the middle, non-imprinted section of The Shroud is an acceptable loss, and a worthwhile risk. If the updated testing again shows a medieval date, then nothing significant has been lost, considering that The Shroud already bears the scars of years of use and fire damage, and considering that The Vatican has never officially vouched for the authenticity of the cloth. If, however, the test comes back as dating to near the time of Christ, then imagine the clamor and positive publicity over such a finding? It would be immense, and clearly worth the risk. Worth the risk, of course, if The Vatican truly believes The Shroud could be authentic. Next episode we will consider to what degree The Vatican really does esteem The Shroud, and maybe bust a few more myths along the way. 

Jessica Spitz, writing recently for NBCNews.com, basically asserts that science has proven - again and again - that The Shroud of Turin is conclusively a fake. The centerpiece of her argument is the carbon dating of The Shroud. She writes:  Forensic scientists have once again concluded that the Shroud of Turin, supposedly the burial cloth Jesus was wrapped in after his crucifixion, was artificially created. The Shroud, which is kept in the Cathedral of St. John the Baptist in Turin, Italy, has long been a subject of controversy within the Catholic community. Believers say its stains are the blood of Jesus, while others have questioned whether the stains are even blood at all. The new research is in line with numerous previous studies that have concluded that the Shroud is not authentic. Earlier carbon dating work has determined that it dates to 1260 to 1390; Jesus is generally believed to have died in the year 33. And a blue ribbon panel called the Turin Commission concluded in 1979 that stains on the garment are likely pigments, not blood, while textiles experts and art historians have suggested that the materials and images are not from the right era.  SOURCE  Reading the article, it sounds very, very definitive. Science has CERTAINLY concluded in many ways that The Shroud is a fake, and this new study just adds more evidence. So - let's take a look at some of these definite proofs and consider whether or not they can convince us that The Shroud is a forgery. Spitz summarizes how this particular 2018 scientific inquiry ‘proved' the Shroud of Turin false in this way:  In the most recent study, forensic scientists used blood pattern analysis to investigate the arm and body position necessary to yield the pattern seen on the Shroud. Using a living volunteer and a mannequin to model several positions, researchers determined that the patterns were consistent with multiple poses, which contradicts with the theory that Jesus was buried in the cloth lying down. In other words, reading between the lines, the researchers concluded that the blood splatter pattern on The Shroud conclusively could NOT have come from a victim that was lying still, but one that was moved about some. Think about it for a moment. Does the fact that the figure on The Shroud shows evidence of being moved AFTER being wrapped in the burial cloth indicate that The Shroud itself must be a forgery? I'm not sure how one could come to that conclusion - especially considering the Biblical testimony that the followers of Jesus took steps to prepare the body of Jesus for permanent burial. As well, we see clear evidence in Matthew that the body of Jesus was wrapped in linen AND THEN MOVED into the tomb. Surely such a thing could account for “multiple poses.” Consider:  So Joseph took the body, wrapped it in clean, fine linen, 60 and placed it in his new tomb, which he had cut into the rock. He left after rolling a great stone against the entrance of the tomb. 61 Mary Magdalene and the other Mary were seated there, facing the tomb. (Matthew 27:59-61) So - does the fact that the Shroud Figure had “multiple poses” conclusively prove that The Shroud is a fake? Of course not - Scripture is clear the body of Jesus was moved, which could certainly account for those multiple poses. But don't take my word for it. Victor Weedn, chairman of forensic sciences as George Washington University in Washington, D.C., said in an interview that while the experimental approach seemed to make sense, he was "skeptical of this analysis," saying there was no reason to believe that the body could not have been moved while being transported. "We're not dealing with things we really know about," Weedn said. "We just don't know if this cloth was laid on someone who just laid there or was wrapped around the body or moved some before being put in a particular place." Weedn is an Ivy League professor with a Juris doctorate and a Medical doctorate - a brilliant man. I think we can consider this particular scientific study conclusively debunked. As a side note, I believe these passages about the burial of Jesus and the preparation of His body in particular are quite interesting relative to the resurrection of Jesus, and I've written about it fairly extensively in my book on the resurrection Easter: Fact or Fiction. We often assume the ancient followers of Jesus were quite gullible and not at all sophisticated - that they would have glibly accepted the  idea of a person coming back to life because they would not have understood it to be scientifically impossible. However, biblical evidence clearly contradicts this - the disciples of Jesus DID NOT expect Him to return. They hid out and mourned. An expensive linen cloth was used to wrap the body of Jesus - strange behavior if one expected him to return in a few short days - why waste the cloth? The female followers of Jesus DID NOT expect Him to rise from the dead - they came to prepare His body for permanent entombment. Even Mary Magdalene, upon seeing the open tomb of Jesus did not assume resurrection, but asked where His lifeless body had been moved to. The followers of Jesus did not expect the resurrection, despite Jesus' claims that He would return from the dead.  Probably the biggest single evidence against the authenticity of The Shroud - at least in most people's mind - is the results of the 1988 radiocarbon dating, which concluded that the fabric was from the 1300s, give or take 200 years. If that conclusion was accurate, then The Shroud would very obviously be a medieval forgery of some sort. I believe that the number of congruences between the figure in The Shroud and the biblical account of the passion, suffering and crucifixion of Jesus are too numerous for one to assume that the figure in The Shroud is anyone but Jesus, and thus - if the cloth is from the 1300s, then The Shroud is an intentional forgery meant to mislead. The trouble is, that there is much debate - scientific, theological, and philosophical - about that carbon dating figure. In one of the groups mentioned above, we can see the two polarizing opinions that people have adopted based on this carbon dating:  N.S:  “No one has been able to replicate how it was made, which is fascinating. And one of the fiber samples taken for carbon dating turns out to have been a repaired section so that accounts toward the dating inconsistencies. I've always been interested in the Shroud and it's physical characteristics. On the other hand, A.M. wrote: I feel like the “carbon dating was from a repaired section” thing has been taken as gospel (no pun intended) without looking at the evidence against that theory; among them the fact that the weaving is not typical of judaean fabrics of the early first century CE, and that several experts including a textile restoration specialist have said that the section from which the sample is taken is microscopically indistinguishable from the rest of the cloth, which is simply not possibly if the repair were undertaken in the time to which the sample dates. There have been many, MANY attempts to prove the 14th century origin date wrong, and all of them have been failures or have been ginned up with test results that were not able to be duplicated and independently verified.  A survey of headlines on major websites shows a similar pattern: Confident and contradictory claims that appear to be irrefutable. For instance:  Life Site News: Scientists debunk theory that Shroud of Turin is medieval ‘hoax' NBC News:  Forensic research (once again) suggests the Shroud of Turin is fake.  BBC News: Turin Shroud Older than Thought. Independent.Co.Uk: 628-year-old fake news: Scientists prove Turin Shroud not genuine (again) USA Today: New Test Dates Shroud of Turin to Era of Christ. Reuters: New Forensic Tests Suggest Shroud of Turin is a Fake.  History.com: Shroud of Turin Isn't Jesus' Burial Cloth, Claims Forensic Study Phys.org - Study of Data from 1988 Shroud of Turin testing suggests mistakes.  Dozens - or more - studies have sought to undermine the 1988 C14 tests. Some have been quite convincing...other, a bit less so. For instance, from a Churchmilitant.com article:  “A theory surfaced in 2014 that the earthquake when Our Lord died on the Cross might have impacted the Shroud's radiocarbon results.  Radiocarbon dating is based on measuring radioactive decay, the process by which atoms lose neutrons. The group of scientists in Italy made the case that the tremors on Good Friday possibly caused emissions of neutrons from the earth's crust, impacting atoms in the Shroud's fibers. If atoms in the Shroud were affected by neutron emissions, this would massively skew the results of radiocarbon dating.” Source   Are you confused yet? I sure am. I think it is obvious that scientific consensus isn't 100 percent behind the hoax or genuine side of The Shroud debate. So - what's the story on that C-14 dating that conclusively and supposedly proved The Shroud was faked? Here's what happened: (FROM WIKIPEDIA SO AS TO BE NEUTRAL)  On April 17, 1988, ten years after the S.T.U.R.P. project had been initiated, British Museum scientific director Michael Tite published in Nature[31] the "final" protocol: the laboratories at Oxford, Zürich, and Tucson would perform the test; they would each receive one sample weighing 40 mg., sampled from a single portion of weave; the laboratories would each receive two control samples, clearly distinguishable from the shroud sample; samples would be delivered to the laboratories' representatives in Turin; each test would be filmed; there would be no comparison of results (nor communication) between laboratories until the results be certified as definitive, univocal, and complete; Samples were taken on April 21, 1988, in the Cathedral by Franco Testore, an expert on weaves and fabrics, and by Giovanni Riggi di Numana. Testore performed the weighting operations while Riggi made the actual cut. Also present were Cardinal Ballestrero, four priests, archdiocese spokesperson Luigi Gonella, photographers, a camera operator, Michael Tite of the British Museum, and the labs' representatives. As a precautionary measure, a piece twice as big as the one required by the protocol was cut from the Shroud; it measured 81 mm × 21 mm (3.19 in × 0.83 in). An outer strip showing coloured filaments of uncertain origin was discarded.[37] The remaining sample, measuring 81 mm × 16 mm (3.19 in × 0.63 in) and weighing 300 mg, was first divided in two equal parts, one of which was preserved in a sealed container, in the custody of the Vatican, in case of future need. The other half was cut into three segments, and packaged for the labs in a separate room by Tite and the archbishop. The lab representatives were not present at this packaging process, in accordance with the protocol. The labs were also each given three control samples.  In a well-attended press conference on October 13, Cardinal Ballestrero announced the official results, i.e. that radio-carbon testing dated the shroud to a date of 1260-1390 AD, with 95% confidence.  (SOURCE: Wikipedia)  So - that's that, right? 95 percent confidence by three different labs that The Shroud was from the 12-1300s. End of story. The radiocarbon dating slammed the door on The Shroud's authenticity for many, many people. One of the foremost Shroud researchers and proponents, who was himself a member of the original STURP team of scientists who studied the Turin Shroud in the late 1970s, is a man named Barrie Schwortz. He runs Shroud.com, which is probably the most visited site devoted to the TS on the internet. In commenting on the results of the dating, Schortz describes the reaction by Shroud devotees:  “As soon as the dating results were leaked to the press, the world of the Shroud came to a complete and sudden halt. Many researchers took this as the final word and disengaged completely. The years of hard work by the STURP team and the many papers they published in the peer-reviewed scientific literature was immediately disregarded and ultimately, forgotten. These were indeed the bleak years of Shroud research.” (SOURCE)  Except, there were objections raised about the radiocarbon testing almost from the beginning. Actually, to be fair, there were objections raised YEARS before the testing actually took place. Professor William Meacham is an archaeologist who writes articles with titles like, “High-throughput field phenotyping using hyperspectral reflectance and partial least squares regression (PLSR) reveals genetic modifications to photosynthetic capacity” and “Determination of the original firing temperature of ceramics from Non Nok Tha and Phimai, Thailand” Before The Shroud was carbon-dated, Meacham cautioned against letting the results be the end-all determinant of the authenticity or lack thereof of Shroud. In 1986, he wrote:  “In recent discussions on the possible authenticity of the Turin Shroud, the question of the value of C-14 dating persistently recurs. Virtually all researchers agree that the test should be performed; sufficiently small samples can now be measured so that the appearance of the relic is not altered. Several C-14 dating proposals are now under consideration by the Archbishop of Turin. In contrast to these positive developments, however, there appears to be an unhealthy consensus approaching the level of dogma among both scientific and lay commentators, that C-14 dating will "settle the issue once and for all time." This attitude sharply contradicts the general perspective of field archaeologists and geologists, who view possible contamination as a very serious problem in interpreting the results of radiocarbon measurement. In this paper I shall examine the issue of the reliability of C-14 testing to produce an "absolute date" on the linen sheet known as the Holy Shroud of Turin and believed by some to be the gravecloth of Christ...Reviewing recent Shroud literature of all persuasions, I find little awareness of the limitations of the C-14 method, an urge to "date first and ask questions later," and a general disregard for the close collaboration between field and laboratory personnel which is the ideal in archaeometric projects. Regarding the Shroud, consultations should take place among archeologists, historians, conservationists, cellulose chemists and of course radiocarbon scientists in order to formulate a specific C-14 sampling and dating procedure. As I shall endeavor to demonstrate below, the radiocarbon measurement of the Shroud is a complex issue, and the inclusion of all relevant expertise is highly important.”  Later, Dr. Meacham concludes his long and excellent paper on this issue, “My own tentative proposal for dating the Shroud is that at least five samples be taken: 1) a single thread from the middle of the cloth, between dorsal and ventral images; 2) a small piece cut just in from the edge next to the site of Raes' piece I; 3) a piece of the charred cloth; 4) a piece cut from the side strip next to the site of Raes' 11; 5) a piece of the backing cloth sewn on in 1534. The principal samples would be 1 and 2, with 3 possibly confirmatory; 4 would hopefully clarify the question of an added side strip: 5 would be a control for modern contamination. All samples would be subjected to elaborate pretreatment, SEM screening and testing (microchemical, mass spectrometry, micro-Raman) for impurities or intrusive substances such as higher order hydrocarbons, inorganic and organic carbonates. Samples 2-5 would be measured by both gas proportional and accelerator counting. Samples of a least 3sq. cm each would be required for intensive pretreatment (likely to sacrifice a portion of the sample), measurement of fractions, and controls for micro-testing. A total of 12 sq. cm. or so of the relic itself would thus be required. Selvage edges would be avoided, as in the British Museum inter-comparison experiment (Burleigh et al 1985:3). In view of the myriad contamination possibilities, at least two fractions of each sample should be measured, by each counting method, if possible. In the end, with luck, we would have at least two or three radiocarbon ages in good agreement and possibly, quite possibly, indicative of the true calendrical age of the Shroud linen. That is all we would be justified in claiming.  The existence of significant indeterminant errors can never be excluded from any age determination. No method is immune from giving grossly incorrect datings when there are non-apparent problems with the samples originating in the field. The results illustrated [in this paper] show that this situation occurs frequently. Regardless of the C-14 result, evidence from other sources would of course remain of considerable importance in the overall evaluation of the age and origin of the relic. A C-14 age later than the first century would not of course constitute scientific proof of the inauthenticity of the Shroud, since radiocarbon dating is a based on a number of unverifiable assumptions -- the most important in this context being that the carbon extracted from the sample is indeed identical with the carbon absorbed from the environment when the sample was alive. But of course C-14 measurement does usually provide a reliable indication of true calendrical age.”  SOURCE (CLICK HERE) Over the years, many have raised objections to the method and conclusions of the test, which most certainly did not follow the protocols that Professor Meacham called for. The main objections raised included the possibility of contamination of the sample (due to more than one fire that The Shroud was exposed to - as well as the touch of hundreds/thousands of medieval hand), as well as the location of the sample being near the edge of the garment - an area some have thought to be part of a medieval repair.  Think of it like this: Have you heard of the Ship of Theseus?  It's one of the more fascinating thought experiments and it has been around for thousands of years, at least since 500 years before the time of Jesus. So - who was Theseus? He was the possibly mythical founding king of Athens. The thought experiment goes like this: Let's say Theseus had a great battle ship that he won some big battles in. Over the years, the ship has to be repaired some planks are damaged, the mast is broken, rot sets in, etc. After a few decades, due to the nature of wood, fabric and rope (and the corrosive effect of salty winds and oceans) - all of the original parts of Theseus' ship has been replaced. Not all at once, of course - but over the years, bit by bit. The philosophical question is this: Is it still Theseus' ship despite the fact that there is not a single original part left??  The second part of the thought experiment is to consider another hypothetical. What if Theseus kept in a storehouse EVERY single part of his boat that was replaced. Further still, what if somebody was able to restore and repair every single former part of the ship, and then completely rebuilt it - using the original parts and to the exact specifications of the original. Which of the two boats is more the original ship of Theseus?? Well, that's not the Bible mystery we are here to solve today, but it does serve as an oblique introduction to one of the major issues with testing The Shroud.  - What if The Ship of Theseus - or a similar ship - was somehow in service for hundreds of years - dating back to an indeterminate time. Perhaps some modern scientists would want to radiocarbon date the ship to test how old it was. That test would only be accurate if one took a sample from an original plank on the ship. If the ship was originally built in 1525, but then repaired in multiple places in 1875, and the sample taken for the carbon test was from a repaired plank, then one could quickly see how the c14 test would fail to ascertain the real age of the ship, right? Well, that is exactly what many claim has happened with the 1988 radiocarbon dating of The Shroud. Many claim that the sample tested was either from a section subject to some unknown medieval era repairs, or it was tainted by a medieval fire, or medieval hands, etc. This is why professor Meacham argued in 1986 that radiocarbon dating should not be the only way that the date of The Shroud was determined.  A 2000 study by Joseph Marino and his wife Sue Benford found interesting results based on x-ray analysis of the TS sample sites. They found what they believe to be a seam in the sampled area of the fabric which is indicative of a repair made much later than when the cloth was originally made. The seam they found is diagonal and runs through the entire strip of the piece of fabric that was divided into three parts and sent to three different labs. Marino and Benford indicate that the variance of roughly 200 years found in the c14 dating of Arizona, Zurich and Oxford seems to correspond to the location of this diagonal seam, which caused the researchers to theorize that the repair was skewing the results of the dating test, and causing the three results to fall outside of the bounds of date agreement that statistical analysis would expect for three tests of the same exact cloth. Interestingly, after my first episode on the T.S., Mr Marino contacted me and sent some very helpful research my way.  Raymond Rogers was a chemist and thermal analysis expert who served for nearly 40 years at the Los Alamos National Laboratory. He was a high ranking military analyst as well, and wrote and edited numerous scientific journal articles. Rogers was the head of chemical analysis for the original STURP team that studied The Shroud. After the 1988 c14 testing, Rogers was initially convinced for years by the results of the test, but began to reconsider those results after reviewing the paper mentioned previously by Joe Marino and Sue Benford. Rogers reexamined some fiber samples from the Turin Shroud in order to debunk the debunkers. He was surprised to find clear microscopic evidence that a cotton patch had been skillfully weaved into the original linen of the tested part of the Turin Shroud. Rogers also noted that x-ray fluorescent photography done of The Shroud demonstrated that the part of the cloth where the sample was taken glowed a different color than the rest of the cloth, which would likely be an indicator that different fabric was contained in the tested sample. In 2005, shortly before his death from cancer, Rogers wrote a scientific paper on The Shroud for the chemistry journal Thermochimica Acta that contained a detailed chemical analysis of The Shroud fibers, (with pictures) and a discussion of the likely contamination of the sampled section of the cloth. The paper concludes: “If the shroud had been produced between a.d. 1260 and 1390, as indicated by the radiocarbon analyses, lignin should be easy to detect. A linen produced in a.d. 1260 would have retained about 37% of its vanillin in 1978. The Raes threads, the Holland cloth, and all other medieval linens gave the test for vanillin wherever lignin could be observed on growth nodes. The disappearance of all traces of vanillin from the lignin in the shroud indicates a much older age than the radiocarbon laboratories reported...Because the shroud and other very old linens do not give the vanillin test, the cloth must be quite old. It is thus very unlikely that the linen was produced during medieval times...The combined evidence from chemical kinetics, analytical chemistry, cotton content, and pyrolysis proves that the material from the radiocarbon area of the shroud is significantly different from that of the main cloth. The radiocarbon sample was thus not part of the original cloth and is invalid for determining the age of the shroud. Because the storage conditions through the centuries are unknown, a more accurate age determination will require new radiocarbon analyses with several fully characterized and carefully prepared samples” SOURCE More recently, Summer of 2019, a peer reviewed academic journal called Archaeometry, produced by The University of Oxford, published a very interesting article that called into question the results of the c14 dating of The Shroud. If you aren't familiar, Archaeometry “is an international research journal covering the application of the physical and biological sciences to archaeology and the history of art. The topics covered include dating methods, artifact studies, mathematical methods, remote sensing techniques, conservation science, environmental reconstruction, biological anthropology and archaeological theory.” An international team of researchers led by French researcher Tristan Casabianca obtained the raw results from the original 1988 radiocarbon testing and did some significant statistical analysis of those results, and also looked for other possible issues. In a recent interview with the French magazine L'Homme Nouveau (The New Man), Casabianca summarized the findings of his team's study:  “In 1989, the results of the shroud dating were published in the prestigious journal Nature: between 1260 and 1390 with 95% certainty. But for thirty years, researchers have asked the laboratories for raw data. These have always refused to provide them. In 2017, I submitted a legal request to the British Museum, which supervised the laboratories. Thus, I had access to hundreds of unpublished pages, which include these raw data. With my team, we conducted their analysis. Our statistical analysis shows that the 1988 carbon 14 dating was unreliable: the tested samples are obviously heterogeneous, [showing many different dates], and there is no guarantee that all these samples, taken from one end of the sheet, are representative of the whole fabric. It is therefore impossible to conclude that the shroud of Turin dates from the Middle Ages.”  The paper itself is incredibly complex, and very heavy on a type of statistical analysis that is well over my head in most places. I've read and reread portions of that paper, though, and I feel like I understand it well enough to note that it raises some very troubling concerns about the results of the 1988 dating. Some of those concerns include:  Significant contamination of various pieces of the very small Shroud samples sent to each laboratory. The paper notes: “ Despite the close visual inspection of the TS by textile experts and the loss of weight of approximately 25% after the cutting (FOIA 2017, 162), Oxford found and removed several textile fibres of different colours, including one identified by a textile laboratory to be cotton, ‘possibly of Egyptian origin and quite old' (Anonymous 1988; FOIA 2017, 104). Oxford mentions that in one subsample there may have been ‘glass', perhaps sodium Radiocarbon dating of the Turin Shroud 7 © 2019 University of Oxford, Archaeometry ••, •• (2019) ••–•• chloride crystals (Wilson 1995, 18; FOIA 2017, 103). In the original draft, Arizona indicated that ‘a red thread and three blue threads' were removed from one of their subsamples (Turin Shroud Archive). In 2010, Arizona recognized that they had kept one piece of an undated TS subsample. On this subsample, the authors identified foreign material invisible to the naked eye, including a blue substance described as ‘apparently wax' (Freer-Waters and Jull 2010, 1522) and some cotton fibres. Zürich may have found an assortment of debris (Marinelli 2012, 26).” 2. Significant statistical differences between the raw dates obtained by the three labs that each tested a similar sample of the Turin Shroud. Recall that a very small piece of the TS was cut off and sent to three different labs. One in Arizona, one in Zurich and one in Oxford. Supposedly all three labs returned the same results for the dating of the TS, but according to Casabianca's statistical survey of the raw results, that claim is not true. He shows that there was significant statistical variance between the results obtained by the three labs, especially the Arizona lab. Now, I'm going to read a part of the paper where Casabianca's team makes this claim, but I do not claim to fully understand what's going on here: The analysis of the Arizona counts showed further interesting aspects. The eight counts of the Arizona data were categorized into four groups (A1 and A2, A3 and A4, A5 and A6, and A7 and A8) because they were executed on the same day using the same standards. The non-parametric Kruskal–Wallis test (Table 5; see also Table S10 for the assumptions) shows highly statistically significant differences even if we consider the eight counts both separately and gathered (p-values < 0.0001). The results show that the different assessments produced by the same laboratory (raw vs. Nature) are not statistically significant, whereas the analysis of the raw radiocarbon dates confirmed that the different laboratories produced different assessments and that these differences are, in most cases, statistically significant. That might be the most understandable section out of the paper's discussion of the statistical anomalies between the dates obtained by the three labs. Ultimately, I take it that Casabianca's work is demonstrating that the lab results are different enough that something must account for the difference - contamination, medieval repairs, botched handling, etc. 3. The dates obtained by the labs on the small samples they were given, appear to vary throughout the length of the sample, rather than remain the same. In other words, different parts of the small sample size tested by each lab test out with a statistically significant different date, a result which could be explained by contamination, and many other factors. The paper makes this claim about the non-homogenous results: Moreover, our statistical analysis of the raw data supports the conclusion of Riani et al. (2013). They used the known locations of the tested samples in each laboratory and showed a significant decrease in the radiocarbon age as one gets closer to the centre of the sheet (in length, from the tested corner). This variability of the Nature radiocarbon dates in a few centimetres, if linearly extrapolated to the opposite side of the TS, would lead to a dating in the future. So - those are some significant scientific issues raised with the 1988 dating in this paper, and many other scientific studies are cited which reveal similar problems with the dating. Casabianca's paper concludes this way: “The discussed statistical analysis reinforced the argument against the goodness of the radiocarbon dating of the TS, suggesting the presence of serious incongruities among the raw measurements. Our results, which are compatible with those previously reported by many other authors (Brunati 1996; Van Haelst 1997, 2002; Riani et al. 2013), strongly suggest that homogeneity is lacking in the data. The measurements made by the three laboratories on the TS sample suffer from a lack of precision which seriously affects the reliability of the 95% AD 1260–1390 interval. The statistical analyses, supported by the foreign material found by the laboratories, show the necessity of a new radiocarbon dating to compute a new reliable interval. This new test requires, in an interdisciplinary research, a robust protocol. Without this re-analysis, 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. This is not a lightweight attack on the credibility of the 1988 radiocarbon dating of The Shroud. If you are a committed and convinced Shroud-skeptic, then I have no beef with you, since I am currently a Shroud-agnostic. However, if you have based your assured skepticism primarily on the radiocarbon dating of The Shroud, then I would encourage you to sit down and try to read Casabianca's paper. It's not an easy read in the least, and you might need some Tylenol, but i believe it does poke significant holes in the credibility of that 1988 test - enough holes that I believe that the test represents minor evidence - at best - against the genuineness of The Shroud, rather than conclusive evidence. So - has 1988 radiocarbon dating conclusively shown that The Shroud was a medieval hoax? I believe that scientists (textile experts, statisticians, chemists, historians and archaeologists) have raised enough objections with the method and the conclusions of the original 1988 test to say, ‘no.' This, of course, does NOT prove that The Shroud is the original burial cloth of Jesus, nor does it prove that The Shroud was produced originally in the first century. What it does suggest - strongly, I'd say - is that we need an updated radiocarbon testing of The Shroud. One that utilizes fabric far closer to the middle of The Shroud, and one that uses fabric that is checked and rechecked for contaminants, repairs and reweaves prior to the testing. What does The Vatican have to lose here? I realize that they want to preserve the Turin Shroud as well as possible - it is a priceless artifact whether it is genuine or not. However, I believe the loss of a small portion of the middle, non-imprinted section of The Shroud is an acceptable loss, and a worthwhile risk. If the updated testing again shows a medieval date, then nothing significant has been lost, considering that The Shroud already bears the scars of years of use and fire damage, and considering that The Vatican has never officially vouched for the authenticity of the cloth. If, however, the test comes back as dating to near the time of Christ, then imagine the clamor and positive publicity over such a finding? It would be immense, and clearly worth the risk. Worth the risk, of course, if The Vatican truly believes The Shroud could be authentic. Next episode we will consider to what degree The Vatican really does esteem The Shroud, and maybe bust a few more myths along the way. 

Today,  I think it would be helpful to have an episode that takes a broad and wide view of The Shroud - that covers all of the basics, so that we're all on the same page. That's the focus of this episode - let's call it an overview of The Shroud of Turin, but the material we cover won't all be introductory level.  As I mentioned in the first episode, I first heard about The Shroud way back in the very early 80s from In Search of.   PLAY CLIP Hearing Mr. Spock - Leonard Nimoy - talking about The Shroud was fascinating to my young mind, and understanding that their might - just might - be a possible artifact from the time of Jesus - that Jesus actually touched - that could actually have a real picture of Jesus - inarguably the most famous person that ever lived - was mind-blowing. So, I read up on The Shroud as I grew older. Most of my Presbyterian church leaders didn't believe in The Shroud - dismissing it as a Catholic hoax, but I wasn't fully convinced. The fact is - once you see pictures of it, then you begin to take it at least a little bit seriously. If The Shroud is a fake - it is an amazing one, and the deeper you dig into it, the more remarkable it becomes.  Some Terms You Should Know:  Icon:  An icon is a religious work of art, usually a painting. Sometimes icons are statues or carvings, or other artistic renderings. Most of the time those pictured in icons are Jesus, Mary, or other saints in the Bible. Some Christians, including many Reformed Christians, consider paintings of Jesus to be violations of the second commandment of the Bible - "Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image" The oldest surviving icon of Jesus - dating from the 500s - is copied below. Let's answer 4 big questions today in our overview:  What exactly is The Shroud? The Shroud of Turin is a linen cloth that is 14.5 feet long and 3 feet, 7 inches wide and has the somewhat faded negative image of a man on it.  Essentially think of the image like a photo-negative - the areas of dark and light are reversed. The darkest areas of the imprint of the man in The Shroud appear light, and vice-versa. The weave of The Shroud is a fine herringbone twill weave. I'm not an expert on textiles, but most experts that I've read seem to think that such a weave would have been possible and used in 1st century middle eastern areas. Like all things related to The Shroud, that is debatable.  The burial cloth of Jesus is indeed listed in the Scriptures, so we know that the body of Jesus was actually wrapped in a linen cloth. There is not enough of a description of that cloth to know whether or not The Shroud is similar. As many have pointed out, there is no Scripture whatsoever that seems to indicate some kind of miraculous imprint of Jesus was left on the burial cloths. To be fair, there is no Scripture to indicate that the disciples examined the cloths, only that they saw them. Considering that there is very little information in Scripture about what happened directly after the resurrection of Jesus, and that the Bible writers focused on The Great Commission there, I don't think it is a very strong argument from silence to say that because the Bible doesn't mention something miraculous regarding the burial cloths of Jesus, therefore it did not happen. John 19: 38 After this, Joseph of Arimathea, who was a disciple of Jesus—but secretly because of his fear of the Jews—asked Pilate that he might remove Jesus' body. Pilate gave him permission, so he came and took His body away. 39 Nicodemus (who had previously come to Him at night) also came, bringing a mixture of about 75 pounds of myrrh and aloes. 40 Then they took Jesus' body and wrapped it in linen cloths with the aromatic spices, according to the burial custom of the Jews. 41 There was a garden in the place where He was crucified. A new tomb was in the garden; no one had yet been placed in it. John 20: 20 On the first day of the week Mary Magdalene came to the tomb early, while it was still dark. She saw that the stone had been removed from the tomb. 2 So she ran to Simon Peter and to the other disciple, the one Jesus loved, and said to them, “They have taken the Lord out of the tomb, and we don't know where they have put Him!” 3 At that, Peter and the other disciple went out, heading for the tomb. 4 The two were running together, but the other disciple outran Peter and got to the tomb first. 5 Stooping down, he saw the linen cloths lying there, yet he did not go in. 6 Then, following him, Simon Peter came also. He entered the tomb and saw the linen cloths lying there. 7 The wrapping that had been on His head was not lying with the linen cloths but was folded up in a separate place by itself. 8 The other disciple, who had reached the tomb first, then entered the tomb, saw, and believed. 9 For they still did not understand the Scripture that He must rise from the dead.  The figure on The Shroud is interesting. He is tall - significantly taller than the average Jewish man of the first century, which was, according to different sources, somewhere between 5'2 and 5'5. The Shroud figure would be anything from around 5'8 to 6'2, with a figure around 5'11 seeming to be fairly likely. The man is well built and quite muscular, and has a beard, shoulder length hair, and a moustache. The Shroud is in excellent condition for its age, but not in mint condition. It has survived numerous fires and movings, and has some scars and singeing from fire. There were fourteen large patches and 16 or so smaller patches that were sewn onto The Shroud to repair it in the 1530s, all of those patches were removed in 2002 by a restoration team who sewed The Shroud onto a new cloth backing. What is the history of The Shroud? This question might have its own episode, because it is quite complex, and very, very disputed. Amongst the difficulties in determining the real history of The Shroud is the lack of photographic and artistic evidence, and the fact that there are more than one burial cloths that are claimed to be the burial cloth of Jesus. As you might know, the medieval period was quite focused on biblical relics, and many unscrupulous people profited greatly from displaying supposed pieces of the true cross, fingerbones of the apostles, grails used at The Last Supper, etc. Many who believe that The Shroud is genuine believe that the history of it can be traced all the way back to The Image of Edessa, which was supposedly given to King Abgar of Edessa by Thaddeus, one of the 70 disciples of Jesus mentioned in Luke 10 - possibly even the Judas Thaddeus that was one of the 12 apostles of Jesus. However, the connection to The Shroud and The Image of Edessa is fairly disputed and tenuous, and we won't discuss it yet. The Shroud of Turin can clearly trace its history to the 1300s. Geoffroi de Charny was a well known and well respected French knight, who was known as a great warrior and a man of honor. He wrote three books in chivalry, served King Jean II, was a founding member of The Order of The Star, and carried the Oriflamme into battle. The what, you say? The Oriflamme was the royal battle standard (or flag) of the French army, and it was a significant honor to be the knight who carried this banner into battle. De Charny was killed by five English knights in the 1356 Battle of Poitiers against the English, and his king was taken captive. Historian Jean Froissart describes De Charny's fall in that battle: “There Sir Geoffroi de Charny fought gallantly near the king (and his fourteen-year-old son). The whole press and cry of battle were upon him because he was carrying the king's sovereign banner [the Oriflamme]. He also had before him his own banner, red, with three white shields. So many English and Gascons came around him from all sides that they cracked open the king's battle formation and smashed it; there were so many English and Gascons that at least five of these men at arms attacked one [French] gentleman. Sir Geoffroi de Charny was killed with the banner of France in his hand, as other French banners fell to earth. So, real life Game of Thrones kind of material here. De Charny was obviously a pretty amazing person. There is some question about how he acquired The Shroud, which we will go into later, but one of the first undisputed images of The Shroud comes from a Pilgrimage of Lirey medal that dates to de Charny's time and area.  To give you a bit further of an idea into the character of Geoffroi de Charny, we can go to the record of the happenings before The Battle of Poitiers, to a meeting amongst the British and French leadership recorded by English Knight John Chandos (on the opposing side of de Charny): The King, to prolong the matter and to put off the battle, assembled and brought together all the barons of both sides. Of speech there he (the King) made no stint. There came the Count of Tancarville, and, as the list says, the Archbishop of Sens (Guillaume de Melun) was there, he of Taurus, of great discretion, Charny, Bouciquaut, and Clermont; all these went there for the council of the King of France. On the other side there came gladly the Earl of Warwick, the hoary-headed (white or grey headed) Earl of Suffolk was there, and Bartholomew de Burghersh, most privy to the Prince, and Audeley and Chandos, who at that time were of great repute. There they held their parliament, and each one spoke his mind. But their counsel I cannot relate, yet I know well, in very truth, as I hear in my record, that they could not be agreed, wherefore each one of them began to depart. Then said Geoffroi de Charny: 'Lords,' quoth he, 'since so it is that this treaty pleases you no more, I make offer that we fight you, a hundred against a hundred, choosing each one from his own side; and know well, whichever hundred be discomfited, all the others, know for sure, shall quit this field and let the quarrel be. I think that it will be best so, and that God will be gracious to us if the battle be avoided in which so many valiant men will be slain.” The Shroud stayed in the Di Charny family until 1453 when it was transferred to the House of Savoy, a royal family in northern Italy. In 1389, a Bishop Pierre D'arcis actually wrote about The Shroud, and said that it was a fake. I'll quote from his letter,  and then give some reasons that his conclusion is controversial: The case, Holy Father, stands thus. Some time since in this diocese of Troyes the Dean of a certain collegiate church, to wit, that of Lirey, falsely and deceitfully, being consumed with the passion of avarice, and not from any motive of devotion but only of gain, procured for his church a certain cloth cunningly painted, upon which by a clever sleight of hand was depicted the twofold image of one man, that is to say, the back and front, he falsely declaring and pretending that this was the actual shroud in which our Saviour Jesus Christ was enfolded in the tomb, and upon which the whole likeness of the Saviour had remained thus impressed together with the wounds which He bore. This story was put about not only in the kingdom of France, but, so to speak, throughout the world, so that from all parts people came together to view it. And further to attract the multitude so that money might cunningly be wrung from them, pretended miracles were worked, certain men being hired to represent themselves as healed at the moment of the exhibition of the shroud, which all believed to the shroud of our Lord. The Lord Henry of Poitiers, of pious memory, then Bishop of Troyes, becoming aware of this, and urged by many prudent persons to take action, as indeed was his duty in the exercise of his ordinary jurisdiction, set himself earnestly to work to fathom the truth of this matter. For many theologians and other wise persons declared that this could not be the real shroud of our Lord having the Saviour's likeness thus imprinted upon it, since the holy Gospel made no mention of any such imprint, while, if it had been true, it was quite unlikely that the holy Evangelists would have omitted to record it, or that the fact should have remained hidden until the present time. Eventually, after diligent inquiry and examination, he discovered the fraud and how the said cloth had been cunningly painted, the truth being attested by the artist who had painted it, to wit, that it was a work of human skill and not miraculously wrought or bestowed. Accordingly, after taking mature counsel with wise theologians and men of the law, seeing that he neither ought nor could allow the matter to pass, he began to institute formal proceedings against the said Dean and his accomplices in order to root out this false persuasion. They, seeing their wickedness discovered, hid away the said cloth so that the Ordinary could not find it, and they kept it hidden afterwards for thirty-four years or thereabouts down to the present year. I would consider this memorandum to be one of the stronger evidences against the authenticity of The Shroud. It fails to be completely convincing, however, for three primary reasons: D'Arcis' memo mentions that the Lirey Shroud was painted, and the painter confessed. The Turin Shroud shows no evidence or sign whatsoever of being painted, and it has been carefully and chemically analyzed for paint. There are several other documents of the same time period that dispute what is in this memorandum. For instance, D'Arcis claims that his predecessor had The Shroud removed because it was a fake, but other documents from the time assert that The Shroud was removed for protection because of war nearby. It is possible – though not proven – that D'Arcis memo was motivated by political issues, or perhaps by competing relic claims. D'Arcis was the Bishop of Troyes – was he disturbed/bothered by people flocking to nearby Lirey to see The Shroud? While his letter claims he is not writing for competitive purposes, it is easy to see why a Bishop of a nearby town – lacking a profound relic – might be opposed to The Shroud drawing crowds elsewhere.  That said, I certainly appreciate his anti-profit and anti-swindling the faithful stance, and wish more churchmen of the time held to it. This alone gives the memo an air of authority and authenticity.  3. The memo is unsigned, unsealed, and not found in any official Vatican records. This likely means it was unsent to the Antipope. Did D'Arcis reconsider the authenticity of The Shroud? What made him withhold the sending of the memo? In 1418, Geoffroi De Charny's granddaughter Margaret, married Humbert of Villersexel, the Count De La Roche, and a significant noble. One month later, the leaders of the Chapel at Lirey, where The Shroud was being kept, temporarily gave it to Count Humbert for safekeeping at his castle Montfort. Humbert dies in 1438, and Margaret hangs onto The Shroud, much to the annoyance of the canons at Lirey, and they sue her in church court to get it back. Margaret takes The Shroud with her on a tour of France, where it is seen by many frenchmen. Margaret dies in 1460, and in 1464, Duke Louis I of Savoy agrees to pay the church at Lirey a yearly stipend, seemingly in exchange for The Shroud. Thus ownership of The Shroud essentially passed into the hands of The Savoy family.  While The Savoy family had possession of The Shroud, they primarily had it kept in  Sainte-Chapelle in Chambery, which was the capital city of the Savoy region. It also toured around France and the parts of modern day Italy, being showcased in Turin in 1473 and a few other times. Unfortunately, in 1532, near-disaster strikes as Fire breaks out in the Sainte Chapelle, Chambéry. Almost everything in the chapel is damaged and destroyed, but The Shroud manages to survive. The case it is held in is seriously damaged by the fire, which causes a drop of molten silver to melt through The Shroud, and several obvious scorch marks are made. That said, the damage is not fatal to any important parts of the image, and the sisters of Poor Clare, tasked with caretaking of The Shroud, repair it in 1534, and sew it onto a new backing called The Holland cloth. In 1578 the Shroud was taken to Turin with great fanfare by The Savoy family. Upon arrival, it is greeted by rifle salute, and displayed to a crowd of 40,000 later in the year. With only a few exceptions, The Shroud has remained in Turin to this day. What have scientific tests shown so far? This is a most controversial question, because there have been dozens of scientific inquiries. I'll briefly focus on two scientific inquiries here - STURP's research in the late 70s and the radiocarbon dating from 1988. The radiocarbon dating is the one everybody knows about, so let's start there. In April, 1988, a very small portion of The Shroud was removed - approximately 3 inches long and a little over half an inch wide. That strip was cut in half, and The Vatican stored half it away for future testing. The remaining strip, approximately 1.5 inches long and a little over half an inch wide, was divided into 3 strips and send to three separate labs in Arizona, Oxford, England, and Switzerland. All three labs came back with results that were very similar, and the consensus was that The Shroud material dated from somewhere between the 1200s and the 1300s, which proved the relic to be a medieval hoax in most people's minds.  As with everything Shroud wise, there have been many criticisms of the original testing. Noted chemist Ray Rogers has written and published one of the more interesting challenges noting that the chemical vanillin was readily found in the samples of The Shroud used for radiocarbon dating, but completely absent from other parts of the main body of The Shroud.  Rogers claimed in the scientific journal Thermochimica Acta, "The fact that vanillin cannot be detected in the lignin on shroud fibers, Dead Sea scrolls linen, and other very old linens indicate that the shroud is quite old. A determination of the kinetics of vanillin loss suggest the shroud is between 1300 and 3000 years old. Even allowing for errors in the measurements and assumptions about storage conditions, the cloth is unlikely to be as young as 840 years" I do not understand textile chemistry nearly well enough to dispute or confirm Rogers' findings, but I am intrigued by then. More recently, research Tristan Casabianca's team found that the 1988 carbon dating was unreliable, as only pieces from the edges of the cloth were radiocarbon tested. Many scholars believe that The Shroud, particularly the edge parts, might have been compromised significantly by several of the fires that have impacted it, especially the 1532 fire. That fire, as well as centuries of display and handling could, in their view, radically alter results from radiocarbon dating.  Casabianca obtained a lot of insight into the 1988 radiocarbon testing via a freedom of information inquiry, and upon examining the original data and process of testing, concluded, “The tested samples are obviously heterogeneous from many different dates. There is no guarantee that all these samples, taken from one end of the shroud, are representative of the whole fabric. It is, therefore, impossible to conclude that the Shroud of Turin dates from the Middle Ages.” Shroud researcher Russ Breault, upon reviewing Casabianca's newly uncovered information, stated,  “this tells us there is something anomalous with the single sample used to date The Shroud. This is something we have long suspected because the corner chosen was absolutely the most handled area of the cloth, exactly where it was held up by hand for hundreds of public exhibitions over the centuries. If you were looking for the worst possible sample location, you would choose from one of the two outside corners — right where the sample was cut in 1988.” That said, it should be considered here that no scientist that specializes in radiocarbon testing has raised significant questions about the method of dating used in the 1988 testing. Summary of Sturp's 1978 findings:  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. Why care? It doesn't prove anything one way or the other about Jesus, so in my mind, it is not a crucial artifact, and certainly shouldn't be used to prove or disprove somebody's faith. If the Shroud is ultimately proved to be a hoax, how big of a deal is that? I would say - religiously speaking - it is not a big deal at all. None of the Christian faith rests on The Shroud of Turin being genuine. While it is true that the burial cloth of Jesus is indeed mentioned a few times in the Bible, it is not given particular attention, and no central or tertiary claims of Christianity rest on the Shroud.  What if - somehow, someway, The Shroud was proven to be the genuine burial cloth of Jesus? I think that would be a HUGE deal...but not a religiously huge deal. Here's what I mean: If The Shroud could be authenticated, then what we would have is a cloth that was actually wrapped around the single most important and well-known person in all of history. Not only that, but we would have a near-photograph of Jesus, and we would know His size, and what He looked like. It would be incredible to know for sure whether or not The Shroud was genuine...but what would its genuineness prove? That Jesus existed? Sure, there are some people who doubt the existence of Jesus, but some people also doubt the moon-landing, and many other obvious facts of history but almost no serious scholar denies that Jesus existed. Would a genuine Shroud PROVE the resurrection of Jesus, which is the central claim of Christianity? Of course not! How could it? I believe beyond a shadow of a doubt that Jesus rose from the dead, but The Shroud could neither prove nor disprove that. In my understanding, The Shroud is an amazing historical artifact - especially if it is proved genuine - but it is not an amazing focus of faith.  To wit, in John 5, Jesus strongly challenged the people who were following him and said:  39 You search the Scriptures because you think that in them you have eternal life; and it is they that bear witness about me,40 yet you refuse to come to me that you may have life. A challenging verse that I think has application in this situation: The Shroud is not capable of saving people from their sins and should not be an object of religious veneration. All veneration and honor should go to Jesus. That said, The Shroud is still - if genuine - one of the most amazing pieces of history in the world. We should not worship it, but there is nothing wrong with being interested and fascinated by it. 

Today,  I think it would be helpful to have an episode that takes a broad and wide view of The Shroud - that covers all of the basics, so that we're all on the same page. That's the focus of this episode - let's call it an overview of The Shroud of Turin, but the material we cover won't all be introductory level.  As I mentioned in the first episode, I first heard about The Shroud way back in the very early 80s from In Search of.   PLAY CLIP Hearing Mr. Spock - Leonard Nimoy - talking about The Shroud was fascinating to my young mind, and understanding that their might - just might - be a possible artifact from the time of Jesus - that Jesus actually touched - that could actually have a real picture of Jesus - inarguably the most famous person that ever lived - was mind-blowing. So, I read up on The Shroud as I grew older. Most of my Presbyterian church leaders didn't believe in The Shroud - dismissing it as a Catholic hoax, but I wasn't fully convinced. The fact is - once you see pictures of it, then you begin to take it at least a little bit seriously. If The Shroud is a fake - it is an amazing one, and the deeper you dig into it, the more remarkable it becomes.  Some Terms You Should Know:  Icon:  An icon is a religious work of art, usually a painting. Sometimes icons are statues or carvings, or other artistic renderings. Most of the time those pictured in icons are Jesus, Mary, or other saints in the Bible. Some Christians, including many Reformed Christians, consider paintings of Jesus to be violations of the second commandment of the Bible - "Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image" The oldest surviving icon of Jesus - dating from the 500s - is copied below. Let's answer 4 big questions today in our overview:  What exactly is The Shroud? The Shroud of Turin is a linen cloth that is 14.5 feet long and 3 feet, 7 inches wide and has the somewhat faded negative image of a man on it.  Essentially think of the image like a photo-negative - the areas of dark and light are reversed. The darkest areas of the imprint of the man in The Shroud appear light, and vice-versa. The weave of The Shroud is a fine herringbone twill weave. I'm not an expert on textiles, but most experts that I've read seem to think that such a weave would have been possible and used in 1st century middle eastern areas. Like all things related to The Shroud, that is debatable.  The burial cloth of Jesus is indeed listed in the Scriptures, so we know that the body of Jesus was actually wrapped in a linen cloth. There is not enough of a description of that cloth to know whether or not The Shroud is similar. As many have pointed out, there is no Scripture whatsoever that seems to indicate some kind of miraculous imprint of Jesus was left on the burial cloths. To be fair, there is no Scripture to indicate that the disciples examined the cloths, only that they saw them. Considering that there is very little information in Scripture about what happened directly after the resurrection of Jesus, and that the Bible writers focused on The Great Commission there, I don't think it is a very strong argument from silence to say that because the Bible doesn't mention something miraculous regarding the burial cloths of Jesus, therefore it did not happen. John 19: 38 After this, Joseph of Arimathea, who was a disciple of Jesus—but secretly because of his fear of the Jews—asked Pilate that he might remove Jesus' body. Pilate gave him permission, so he came and took His body away. 39 Nicodemus (who had previously come to Him at night) also came, bringing a mixture of about 75 pounds of myrrh and aloes. 40 Then they took Jesus' body and wrapped it in linen cloths with the aromatic spices, according to the burial custom of the Jews. 41 There was a garden in the place where He was crucified. A new tomb was in the garden; no one had yet been placed in it. John 20: 20 On the first day of the week Mary Magdalene came to the tomb early, while it was still dark. She saw that the stone had been removed from the tomb. 2 So she ran to Simon Peter and to the other disciple, the one Jesus loved, and said to them, “They have taken the Lord out of the tomb, and we don't know where they have put Him!” 3 At that, Peter and the other disciple went out, heading for the tomb. 4 The two were running together, but the other disciple outran Peter and got to the tomb first. 5 Stooping down, he saw the linen cloths lying there, yet he did not go in. 6 Then, following him, Simon Peter came also. He entered the tomb and saw the linen cloths lying there. 7 The wrapping that had been on His head was not lying with the linen cloths but was folded up in a separate place by itself. 8 The other disciple, who had reached the tomb first, then entered the tomb, saw, and believed. 9 For they still did not understand the Scripture that He must rise from the dead.  The figure on The Shroud is interesting. He is tall - significantly taller than the average Jewish man of the first century, which was, according to different sources, somewhere between 5'2 and 5'5. The Shroud figure would be anything from around 5'8 to 6'2, with a figure around 5'11 seeming to be fairly likely. The man is well built and quite muscular, and has a beard, shoulder length hair, and a moustache. The Shroud is in excellent condition for its age, but not in mint condition. It has survived numerous fires and movings, and has some scars and singeing from fire. There were fourteen large patches and 16 or so smaller patches that were sewn onto The Shroud to repair it in the 1530s, all of those patches were removed in 2002 by a restoration team who sewed The Shroud onto a new cloth backing. What is the history of The Shroud? This question might have its own episode, because it is quite complex, and very, very disputed. Amongst the difficulties in determining the real history of The Shroud is the lack of photographic and artistic evidence, and the fact that there are more than one burial cloths that are claimed to be the burial cloth of Jesus. As you might know, the medieval period was quite focused on biblical relics, and many unscrupulous people profited greatly from displaying supposed pieces of the true cross, fingerbones of the apostles, grails used at The Last Supper, etc. Many who believe that The Shroud is genuine believe that the history of it can be traced all the way back to The Image of Edessa, which was supposedly given to King Abgar of Edessa by Thaddeus, one of the 70 disciples of Jesus mentioned in Luke 10 - possibly even the Judas Thaddeus that was one of the 12 apostles of Jesus. However, the connection to The Shroud and The Image of Edessa is fairly disputed and tenuous, and we won't discuss it yet. The Shroud of Turin can clearly trace its history to the 1300s. Geoffroi de Charny was a well known and well respected French knight, who was known as a great warrior and a man of honor. He wrote three books in chivalry, served King Jean II, was a founding member of The Order of The Star, and carried the Oriflamme into battle. The what, you say? The Oriflamme was the royal battle standard (or flag) of the French army, and it was a significant honor to be the knight who carried this banner into battle. De Charny was killed by five English knights in the 1356 Battle of Poitiers against the English, and his king was taken captive. Historian Jean Froissart describes De Charny's fall in that battle: “There Sir Geoffroi de Charny fought gallantly near the king (and his fourteen-year-old son). The whole press and cry of battle were upon him because he was carrying the king's sovereign banner [the Oriflamme]. He also had before him his own banner, red, with three white shields. So many English and Gascons came around him from all sides that they cracked open the king's battle formation and smashed it; there were so many English and Gascons that at least five of these men at arms attacked one [French] gentleman. Sir Geoffroi de Charny was killed with the banner of France in his hand, as other French banners fell to earth. So, real life Game of Thrones kind of material here. De Charny was obviously a pretty amazing person. There is some question about how he acquired The Shroud, which we will go into later, but one of the first undisputed images of The Shroud comes from a Pilgrimage of Lirey medal that dates to de Charny's time and area.  To give you a bit further of an idea into the character of Geoffroi de Charny, we can go to the record of the happenings before The Battle of Poitiers, to a meeting amongst the British and French leadership recorded by English Knight John Chandos (on the opposing side of de Charny): The King, to prolong the matter and to put off the battle, assembled and brought together all the barons of both sides. Of speech there he (the King) made no stint. There came the Count of Tancarville, and, as the list says, the Archbishop of Sens (Guillaume de Melun) was there, he of Taurus, of great discretion, Charny, Bouciquaut, and Clermont; all these went there for the council of the King of France. On the other side there came gladly the Earl of Warwick, the hoary-headed (white or grey headed) Earl of Suffolk was there, and Bartholomew de Burghersh, most privy to the Prince, and Audeley and Chandos, who at that time were of great repute. There they held their parliament, and each one spoke his mind. But their counsel I cannot relate, yet I know well, in very truth, as I hear in my record, that they could not be agreed, wherefore each one of them began to depart. Then said Geoffroi de Charny: 'Lords,' quoth he, 'since so it is that this treaty pleases you no more, I make offer that we fight you, a hundred against a hundred, choosing each one from his own side; and know well, whichever hundred be discomfited, all the others, know for sure, shall quit this field and let the quarrel be. I think that it will be best so, and that God will be gracious to us if the battle be avoided in which so many valiant men will be slain.” The Shroud stayed in the Di Charny family until 1453 when it was transferred to the House of Savoy, a royal family in northern Italy. In 1389, a Bishop Pierre D'arcis actually wrote about The Shroud, and said that it was a fake. I'll quote from his letter,  and then give some reasons that his conclusion is controversial: The case, Holy Father, stands thus. Some time since in this diocese of Troyes the Dean of a certain collegiate church, to wit, that of Lirey, falsely and deceitfully, being consumed with the passion of avarice, and not from any motive of devotion but only of gain, procured for his church a certain cloth cunningly painted, upon which by a clever sleight of hand was depicted the twofold image of one man, that is to say, the back and front, he falsely declaring and pretending that this was the actual shroud in which our Saviour Jesus Christ was enfolded in the tomb, and upon which the whole likeness of the Saviour had remained thus impressed together with the wounds which He bore. This story was put about not only in the kingdom of France, but, so to speak, throughout the world, so that from all parts people came together to view it. And further to attract the multitude so that money might cunningly be wrung from them, pretended miracles were worked, certain men being hired to represent themselves as healed at the moment of the exhibition of the shroud, which all believed to the shroud of our Lord. The Lord Henry of Poitiers, of pious memory, then Bishop of Troyes, becoming aware of this, and urged by many prudent persons to take action, as indeed was his duty in the exercise of his ordinary jurisdiction, set himself earnestly to work to fathom the truth of this matter. For many theologians and other wise persons declared that this could not be the real shroud of our Lord having the Saviour's likeness thus imprinted upon it, since the holy Gospel made no mention of any such imprint, while, if it had been true, it was quite unlikely that the holy Evangelists would have omitted to record it, or that the fact should have remained hidden until the present time. Eventually, after diligent inquiry and examination, he discovered the fraud and how the said cloth had been cunningly painted, the truth being attested by the artist who had painted it, to wit, that it was a work of human skill and not miraculously wrought or bestowed. Accordingly, after taking mature counsel with wise theologians and men of the law, seeing that he neither ought nor could allow the matter to pass, he began to institute formal proceedings against the said Dean and his accomplices in order to root out this false persuasion. They, seeing their wickedness discovered, hid away the said cloth so that the Ordinary could not find it, and they kept it hidden afterwards for thirty-four years or thereabouts down to the present year. I would consider this memorandum to be one of the stronger evidences against the authenticity of The Shroud. It fails to be completely convincing, however, for three primary reasons: D'Arcis' memo mentions that the Lirey Shroud was painted, and the painter confessed. The Turin Shroud shows no evidence or sign whatsoever of being painted, and it has been carefully and chemically analyzed for paint. There are several other documents of the same time period that dispute what is in this memorandum. For instance, D'Arcis claims that his predecessor had The Shroud removed because it was a fake, but other documents from the time assert that The Shroud was removed for protection because of war nearby. It is possible – though not proven – that D'Arcis memo was motivated by political issues, or perhaps by competing relic claims. D'Arcis was the Bishop of Troyes – was he disturbed/bothered by people flocking to nearby Lirey to see The Shroud? While his letter claims he is not writing for competitive purposes, it is easy to see why a Bishop of a nearby town – lacking a profound relic – might be opposed to The Shroud drawing crowds elsewhere.  That said, I certainly appreciate his anti-profit and anti-swindling the faithful stance, and wish more churchmen of the time held to it. This alone gives the memo an air of authority and authenticity.  3. The memo is unsigned, unsealed, and not found in any official Vatican records. This likely means it was unsent to the Antipope. Did D'Arcis reconsider the authenticity of The Shroud? What made him withhold the sending of the memo? In 1418, Geoffroi De Charny's granddaughter Margaret, married Humbert of Villersexel, the Count De La Roche, and a significant noble. One month later, the leaders of the Chapel at Lirey, where The Shroud was being kept, temporarily gave it to Count Humbert for safekeeping at his castle Montfort. Humbert dies in 1438, and Margaret hangs onto The Shroud, much to the annoyance of the canons at Lirey, and they sue her in church court to get it back. Margaret takes The Shroud with her on a tour of France, where it is seen by many frenchmen. Margaret dies in 1460, and in 1464, Duke Louis I of Savoy agrees to pay the church at Lirey a yearly stipend, seemingly in exchange for The Shroud. Thus ownership of The Shroud essentially passed into the hands of The Savoy family.  While The Savoy family had possession of The Shroud, they primarily had it kept in  Sainte-Chapelle in Chambery, which was the capital city of the Savoy region. It also toured around France and the parts of modern day Italy, being showcased in Turin in 1473 and a few other times. Unfortunately, in 1532, near-disaster strikes as Fire breaks out in the Sainte Chapelle, Chambéry. Almost everything in the chapel is damaged and destroyed, but The Shroud manages to survive. The case it is held in is seriously damaged by the fire, which causes a drop of molten silver to melt through The Shroud, and several obvious scorch marks are made. That said, the damage is not fatal to any important parts of the image, and the sisters of Poor Clare, tasked with caretaking of The Shroud, repair it in 1534, and sew it onto a new backing called The Holland cloth. In 1578 the Shroud was taken to Turin with great fanfare by The Savoy family. Upon arrival, it is greeted by rifle salute, and displayed to a crowd of 40,000 later in the year. With only a few exceptions, The Shroud has remained in Turin to this day. What have scientific tests shown so far? This is a most controversial question, because there have been dozens of scientific inquiries. I'll briefly focus on two scientific inquiries here - STURP's research in the late 70s and the radiocarbon dating from 1988. The radiocarbon dating is the one everybody knows about, so let's start there. In April, 1988, a very small portion of The Shroud was removed - approximately 3 inches long and a little over half an inch wide. That strip was cut in half, and The Vatican stored half it away for future testing. The remaining strip, approximately 1.5 inches long and a little over half an inch wide, was divided into 3 strips and send to three separate labs in Arizona, Oxford, England, and Switzerland. All three labs came back with results that were very similar, and the consensus was that The Shroud material dated from somewhere between the 1200s and the 1300s, which proved the relic to be a medieval hoax in most people's minds.  As with everything Shroud wise, there have been many criticisms of the original testing. Noted chemist Ray Rogers has written and published one of the more interesting challenges noting that the chemical vanillin was readily found in the samples of The Shroud used for radiocarbon dating, but completely absent from other parts of the main body of The Shroud.  Rogers claimed in the scientific journal Thermochimica Acta, "The fact that vanillin cannot be detected in the lignin on shroud fibers, Dead Sea scrolls linen, and other very old linens indicate that the shroud is quite old. A determination of the kinetics of vanillin loss suggest the shroud is between 1300 and 3000 years old. Even allowing for errors in the measurements and assumptions about storage conditions, the cloth is unlikely to be as young as 840 years" I do not understand textile chemistry nearly well enough to dispute or confirm Rogers' findings, but I am intrigued by then. More recently, research Tristan Casabianca's team found that the 1988 carbon dating was unreliable, as only pieces from the edges of the cloth were radiocarbon tested. Many scholars believe that The Shroud, particularly the edge parts, might have been compromised significantly by several of the fires that have impacted it, especially the 1532 fire. That fire, as well as centuries of display and handling could, in their view, radically alter results from radiocarbon dating.  Casabianca obtained a lot of insight into the 1988 radiocarbon testing via a freedom of information inquiry, and upon examining the original data and process of testing, concluded, “The tested samples are obviously heterogeneous from many different dates. There is no guarantee that all these samples, taken from one end of the shroud, are representative of the whole fabric. It is, therefore, impossible to conclude that the Shroud of Turin dates from the Middle Ages.” Shroud researcher Russ Breault, upon reviewing Casabianca's newly uncovered information, stated,  “this tells us there is something anomalous with the single sample used to date The Shroud. This is something we have long suspected because the corner chosen was absolutely the most handled area of the cloth, exactly where it was held up by hand for hundreds of public exhibitions over the centuries. If you were looking for the worst possible sample location, you would choose from one of the two outside corners — right where the sample was cut in 1988.” That said, it should be considered here that no scientist that specializes in radiocarbon testing has raised significant questions about the method of dating used in the 1988 testing. Summary of Sturp's 1978 findings:  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. Why care? It doesn't prove anything one way or the other about Jesus, so in my mind, it is not a crucial artifact, and certainly shouldn't be used to prove or disprove somebody's faith. If the Shroud is ultimately proved to be a hoax, how big of a deal is that? I would say - religiously speaking - it is not a big deal at all. None of the Christian faith rests on The Shroud of Turin being genuine. While it is true that the burial cloth of Jesus is indeed mentioned a few times in the Bible, it is not given particular attention, and no central or tertiary claims of Christianity rest on the Shroud.  What if - somehow, someway, The Shroud was proven to be the genuine burial cloth of Jesus? I think that would be a HUGE deal...but not a religiously huge deal. Here's what I mean: If The Shroud could be authenticated, then what we would have is a cloth that was actually wrapped around the single most important and well-known person in all of history. Not only that, but we would have a near-photograph of Jesus, and we would know His size, and what He looked like. It would be incredible to know for sure whether or not The Shroud was genuine...but what would its genuineness prove? That Jesus existed? Sure, there are some people who doubt the existence of Jesus, but some people also doubt the moon-landing, and many other obvious facts of history but almost no serious scholar denies that Jesus existed. Would a genuine Shroud PROVE the resurrection of Jesus, which is the central claim of Christianity? Of course not! How could it? I believe beyond a shadow of a doubt that Jesus rose from the dead, but The Shroud could neither prove nor disprove that. In my understanding, The Shroud is an amazing historical artifact - especially if it is proved genuine - but it is not an amazing focus of faith.  To wit, in John 5, Jesus strongly challenged the people who were following him and said:  39 You search the Scriptures because you think that in them you have eternal life; and it is they that bear witness about me,40 yet you refuse to come to me that you may have life. A challenging verse that I think has application in this situation: The Shroud is not capable of saving people from their sins and should not be an object of religious veneration. All veneration and honor should go to Jesus. That said, The Shroud is still - if genuine - one of the most amazing pieces of history in the world. We should not worship it, but there is nothing wrong with being interested and fascinated by it. 

Turin is the capital city of Piedmont in northern Italy, known for its refined architecture and cuisine. Surrounded by the Italian Alps, the birthplace of Arte Povera and home to one of the most sacred religious artifacts, the Turin Shroud. Considered by some to be one of the most haunted cities in the world, Turin is home to many interesting spots associated with black magic and witchcraft. In an area of such natural and man-made beauty, magic can always be found, whether it’s legendary tales of the occult, or simply the feeling you get from the stunning and romantic surroundings. Jean-Michel Dufaux https://www.instagram.com/jmdufaux https://twitter.com/jmdufaux

Turin apart at the seams... The deep dive on the Shroud of Turin continues in part 2! Skeptics of the Shroud of Turin's authenticity bring up a number of points on why it's not actually the burial sheet of Jesus. Flora takes a look at the arguments presented against the shroud's authenticity as well as questions that popped up along the way. Could this thing actually be 2,000 years old? Is it the holy relic many people think it is? Science on the dating, image formation, and theories on who made it are addressed. David also explains his thoughts and opinions on the shroud's authenticity, based on his research into this topic. Listen to the other side of the debate and ponder this mystery to your heart's content in this episode of Blurry Photos! Music Rites, Danse Macabre, Long Note 4, Hiding Your Reality - Kevin MacLeod (incompetech.com) Licensed under Creative Commons: By Attribution 3.0 Sources Nickell, Joe. Inquest on the Shroud of Turin: Latest Scientific Findings. Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books. 1998. Meacham, William. "The Authentication of the Turin Shroud, An Issue in Archeological Epistemology". Current Anthropology. 1983 Wilson, Ian. The Shroud of Turin: The Burial Cloth of Jesus Christ? Rev. ed. Garden City, New York: Image Books. 1979. McCrone, Walter C. Judgment Day for the Turin Shroud. Chicago: Microscope. 1996. D’Arcis, Pierre. Memorandum to the Avignon Pope, Clement VII, translated from Latin by Rev. Herbert Thurston, 1389. Reprinted in Wilson 1979, 266–272. Radiocarbon Dating of the Shroud of Turin, Nature, Vol. 337, No. 6208, pp. 611-615, 16th February, 1989. Web. https://www.nature.com/articles/337611a0?foxtrotcallback=true Chivers, Tom. The Turin Shroud is Fake. Get Over It. Signs of the Times. Dec. 20, 2011. Web. https://www.sott.net/article/239118-The-Turin-Shroud-is-fake-Get-over-it Lusher, Adam. 628 Year Old Fake News: Scientists Prove Turin Shroud Not Genuine (Again). London: The Independent. Jul. 16, 2018, Web. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/turin-shroud-latest-fake-forgery-scientific-blood-pattern-spatter-study-carbon-dating-debunked-a8450101.html Nickell, Joe. Crucifixion Evidence Debunks Turin "Shroud". Center for Inquiry. Jun. 18, 2018. Web. https://centerforinquiry.org/blog/crucifixion-evidence-debunks-turin-shroud/ Ramsey, Christopher. The Shroud of Turin. Oxford, U.K: Oxford Radiocarbon Accelerator Unit. Mar. 2008. Web. http://c14.arch.ox.ac.uk/shroud.html Viviano, Frank. Why Shroud of Turin's Secrets Continue to Elude Science. National Geographic. Apr. 17, 2015. Web. https://news.nationalgeographic.com/2015/04/150417-shroud-turin-relics-jesus-catholic-church-religion-science/ Nickell, Joe. Fake Turin Shroud Deceives National Geographic Author. Center for Scientific Inquiry. Apr. 23, 2015. Web. https://www.csicop.org/specialarticles/show/fake_turin_shroud_deceives_national_geographic_author Ateo, John L.; C., Rachel. The Shroud of Turin: Burial Cloth of Jesus or Cheap Fake. Silly Beliefs. 2009. Web. http://www.sillybeliefs.com/shroud.html Ford, David. The Shroud of Turin's 'Blood' Images. University of Maryland Baltimore County. Dec. 10, 2000. Web. https://www.shroud.com/pdfs/ford1.pdf Nickell, Joe. Claims of Invalid "Shroud" Radiocarbon Date Cut from Whole Cloth. Center for Inquiry. Mar. 2, 2005. Web. https://www.csicop.org/specialarticles/show/claims_of_invalid_ldquoshroudrdquo_radiocarbon_date_cut_from_whole_cloth Freeman, Charles. The Shroud of Turin and the Image of Edessa: A misguided Journey. The Skeptical Shroud of Turin Website. May 24, 2012. Web. http://www.llanoestacado.org/freeinquiry/skeptic/shroud/articles/freeman_shroud_edessa_misguided_journey/ The Popes and the Holy Shroud. Vatican Insider. Apr. 19, 2015. Web. https://www.lastampa.it/2015/04/19/vaticaninsider/the-popes-and-the-holy-shroud-7zDmX3UXVSnSYsPpJKsEkI/pagina.html Boese, Alex. The Medieval Relic Trade. The Museum of Hoaxes. 2015. Web. http://hoaxes.org/archive/permalink/the_medieval_relic_trade Calvin, John. A Treatise on Relics. Edinburgh: Johnstone, Hunter & Co. 1870. http://www.gutenberg.org/files/32136/32136-h/32136-h.html McCrone, Walter. McCrone: The Shroud of Turin. Chicago: McCrone Research Institute. 2018. Web. https://www.mccroneinstitute.org/v/64/the-shroud-of-turin Dave. Is the Shroud of Turin Really Jesus? Skeptical Science. Dec. 28, 2015. Web. https://www.skeptical-science.com/religion/is-the-shroud-of-turin-really-jesus/ Carroll, Robert Todd. "Shroud" of Turin. The Skeptic's Dictionary. Oct. 29, 2015. Web. http://skepdic.com/shroud.html

Hello again. We reflect on a famous victory for humility’s Jose Mourinho and a surprising Steve Bruce-starring sequel to the Turin Shroud as Man United beat Juventus, a grim tunnel experience for Liverpool and Raheem Sterling’s rub of the green in the Chaaaaaaaampions League.Back on domestic turf Mortal Kombat’s Neil Warnock is still just happy to be here, words are put in mouths and there’s some good old fashioned nihilism. This show is sponsored by bet365Search ‘Football Ramble’ on social media to find us, and email us here: show@thefootballramble.com***Please take the time to rate and review us on iTunes or wherever you get your pods. It means a great deal to the show and will make it easier for other potential listeners to find us. Thanks!***Further reading:Are we about to see the best of Alvaro Morata?https://www.independent.co.uk/sport/football/premier-league/alvaro-morata-chelsea-crystal-palace-didier-drogba-diego-costa-jonathan-liew-video-a8618406.htmlRaheem Sterling’s penalty decision the worst ever?https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/46129571Liverpool need to rediscover their spark:https://www.theguardian.com/football/2018/nov/07/andy-robertson-liverpool-spark-jurgen-klopp-champions-league See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

Tento podcast otvoríme kravskou Fakt a fikciou, ktorej sa zúčastní aj hosť, naslovovzatá odborníčka na kravičky, Shiv. Ďalej si pripomenieme, že polygraf (aj detektorom lži zvaný) je postavený na pseudovede a na záver nám Martir povie o výsledkoch nového testu, ktorému bolo podrobené turínske plátno. Pseudocast 359 na YouTube Zdroje 21 things you didn't know about cowsMilkproduction.comA BPA Approach to the Shroud of TurinAtomic resolution studies detect new biologic evidences on the Turin ShroudRetraction: Atomic resolution studies detect new biologic evidences on the Turin Shroud

The Turin Shroud is one of the most revered relics of the Catholic Church: a piece of linen cloth that appears to show the imprint of a blood-stained crucified man. Some Christians believe it is the ancient cloth that Jesus Christ was buried in. In 1988, the Church allowed scientists to perform a radiocarbon dating test on a small sample of the shroud. The results are still controversial. In 2016 Rob Walker spoke to Professor Michael Tite who supervised the testing process. This programme is a rebroadcast.(Photo: Picture showing a facsimile of the Shroud of Turin at the Cathedral of Malaga. Credit: Jorge Guerrero/AFP/Getty Images)

In this episode, we study of the image of Our Lady of Guadalupe and the legend of the Marian apparition behind it. As with our study of the Turin Shroud, we look closely at the miraculous claims about this item.  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

In this episode, we take a look at the most studied artifact in history: the cloth said to be the burial shroud of Christ, which bears a mysterious image believed by many to be his wounded body.  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

The Turin Shroud is one of the most revered relics of the Catholic Church: a piece of linen cloth that appears to show the imprint of a blood-stained crucified man. Some Christians believe it is the ancient cloth that Jesus Christ was buried in. In 1988, the Church allowed scientists to perform a radiocarbon dating test on a small sample of the shroud. The results are still controversial. Witness speaks to Professor Michael Tite who supervised the testing process. (Photo: Picture showing a facsimile of the Shroud of Turin at the Cathedral of Malaga. Credit: Jorge Guerrero/AFP/Getty Images)

Duomo Torino and the Turin Shroud. #sicily2015 #sicily #holiday #railway #train #journey #VisuallyImpaired #blind #independent #august #2015 #turin #cathedral #duomo #shroud

Art Historian Nicholas Allen has a radical theory about the image on the Shroud of Turin; he believes it was the world's first photograph, taken 500 years before the known invention of photography. The latest in science, culture, and history from Smithsonian Channel.

Two guests with different views on the authenticity of the Turin Shroud join Justin to debate following his feature documentary on the Shroud. Alan Whanger has spent decades researching the shroud and believe he has seen images on it that link it to 1st Century Israel. Hugh Farey Iliad spent decades surveying shroud literature and has done to the conclusion it is medieval in origin. For Justin's radio feature ‘The Turin Shroud: a relic of the resurrection?’: http://www.premierchristianradio.com/Shows/Saturday/Unbelievable/Episodes/The-Turin-Shroud-a-relic-of-the-resurrection-Unbelievable For Justin's magazine feature ‘Shrouded in Mystery’: http://www.premierchristianity.com/Past-Issues/2015/April-2015/Shrouded-in-mystery For Alan Whanger: http://people.duke.edu/~adw2/shroud/ For Hugh Farey: https://www.shroud.com/bstsmain.htm For more faith debates visit www.premierchristianradio.com/unbelievable Join the conversation: Facebook and Twitter Get the MP3 podcast of Unbelievable? http://www.kaltura.com/api_v3/getFeed.php?partnerId=618072&feedId=1_jlj47tkv or Via Itunes

The Turin Shroud has been an enigma for hundreds of years. In a special Good Friday feature Justin Brierley spoke to those who claim the evidence shows the shroud is the burial cloth of Christ, and its image a result of the resurrection itself. Justin hears from experts and also about the modern converts to Christianity that the Shroud is making. Book for Unbelievable? The Conference 2014 www.premier.org.uk/reasonablefaith For more faith debates visit www.premier.org.uk/unbelievable Join the conversation: Facebook and Twitter Get the MP3 podcast of Unbelievable? http://ondemand.premier.org.uk/unbelievable/AudioFeed.aspx or Via Itunes

This edition features British researcher Thomas de Wesselow who has made headlines in the UKthis week with his new book on the Turin Shroud The Sign. You may have thought you had heard all thereis to be said about it – you have not!

"The Shroud of Turin or Turin Shroud is a linen cloth bearing the image of a man who appears to have suffered physical trauma in a manner consistent with crucifixion. It is kept in the royal chapel of the Cathedral of Saint John the Baptist in Turin, northern Italy." Wikipedia Dr.Andrew Silverman, a medical doctor joins us on the show to discuss ideas and scientific concepts that Nigel Kerner and himself presented to a worldwide audience of experts at the recent Frascati conference in Italy, about how the image may have been formed on the Shroud. It is Nigel's thesis that the Shroud of Turin is the most powerful illustration paradigm to show the power over atoms of someone who lived for existence beyond the atomic state. There is a popular misconception that the image on this cloth purportedly created by the resurrection process of the Jewish born Christian teacher Yeshua Ben Yosef (Jesus Christ), was the product of a forgery based upon carbon dating of the Shroud done in 1988. But there has been significant evidence revealed since then that suggests that the dating was invalid. And much more...

Today's guest is Nigel Kerner, screenwriter, journalist, and author of "The Song of the Greys" and "Greys Aliens and the Harvesting of Souls". He is joined to discuss his shocking theory on the Grey alien presence with Dr Andrew Silerman and Associate Research Professor of Cell biology, John Biggerstaff. In the later part of the show Dr Andrew Silverman discusses new research that points to the Shroud of Turin being genuine. From Wikipedia: "The Shroud of Turin or Turin Shroud is a linen cloth bearing the image of a man who appears to have suffered physical trauma in a manner consistent with crucifixion. It is kept in the royal chapel of the Cathedral of Saint John the Baptist in Turin, northern Italy. Some contend that the shroud is the actual cloth placed on the body of Jesus Christ at the time of his burial, and that the face image is the Holy Face of Jesus" Synopsis for Greys Aliens and the Harvesting of Souls In 1997 Nigel Kerner first introduced the notion of aliens known as Greys coming to Earth, explaining that Greys are sophisticated biological robots created by an extraterrestrial civilization they have long since outlived. In this new book Kerner reveals that the Greys are seeking to master death by obtaining something humans possess that they do not: souls. Through the manipulation of human DNA, these aliens hope to create their own souls and, thereby, escape the entropic grip of the material universe in favour of the timeless realm of spirit. Kerner explains that genetic manipulation by the Greys has occurred since biblical times and has led to numerous negative qualities that plague humanity, such as violence, greed, and maliciousness. Racism, he contends, was developed by the aliens to prevent their genetic experiments from being compromised by breeding with others outside their influence. Examining historical records, Kerner shows that Jesus, who represented an uncorrupted genetic line, warned his disciples about the threat posed by these alien interlopers, while Hitler, a pure product of this alien intelligence, waged genocide in an attempt to rid Earth of all those untouched by this genetic tampering. Despite the powerful grip the Greys have on humanity, Kerner says that all hope is not lost. Greys exist wholly in the material world, so if we follow the spiritual laws of reincarnation and karma, aiming for enlightenment and rising above the material.

The Shroud of Turin - Shroud scientists try to resurrect the controversy

In October 1988, the Cardinal Archbishop of Turin, Cardinal Balestero announced the results of scientific tests done to date the Turin Shroud: it was almost certainly created between 1260 and 1390.But is this use of science the end of the religious and human story? What are we now to think of the apparent face of Christ on the shroud that has so caught the imagination of Christians for over 600 years?