Відео

I tried instaling it on windows but I didn't understand how ;( also can't find it on appstore anymore either seems im late

It’s fred bluestone from st pete pier

See: "The Enigma of the Sign of Jonah," BSTS Shroud Newsletter, Summer 2023, for an hypothesis about how the Shroud's images might have been predicted by Jesus.

When you mentioned the Sturp team studied the shroud for 5 days this took place in October, 1978. If you express this as 10/78 make it one number it is 1078 or 539x2. Babylon was conquered in 539 B.C. The importance of the Resurrection points to the 2nd time when God annihilates the Kingdom of Satan. The Shroud confirms this for us. Thank you for this wonderful presentation.

Hi Oliver, the blood is still red because of bilirubin. shroud.com/pdfs/ohiogoldoni.pdf

tHE SHROUD DID NOT WRAP jesus of Nazareth! The body of a SPACE ALIAN is A NAZARETH this means it is not a HUMAN BEING wrapped in a burial shroud! UFO is A NASA ALIAN which is ANTI MATTER that difies human understanding! The RETURN OF JESUS would explain his NASA AFFILIATION being from SPACE, another dimension!

Can you link the first five questions video in the description or here in the comments?

Very well done.

Perfectly provided explanation about graven images. I hope the guy who asked the question from the prior week was there to hear it.

Thanks again

If we have DNA, doesn't that mean the crucified man was human?

Oliver, blessed Christmas to you and your family. I had wanted to see if you have any comments on these. First a question. I've had a friend who has objection to the Shroud because the image on it doesn't look like someone from Jerusalem region. I think he mentioned the person looks Caucasian or such. Any comments? Second, an observation. I am quite surprised that many Christians choose not to learn more about the Shroud, for various reasons I guess. It's a real pity when it can reveal the tremendous pain and suffering Jesus went through, and His love for us, in a very real sense. Sigh.

I find his musicality exceptional!

It is my understanding that the Templars were not participants in the Fourth Crusade. The hypothesis that they purchased (illegally) the Shroud is tenable and may have been one of the reasons that the were so secretive about it.

Christianity as a religion did not exist in the first century, so Abgar V could not have been "the first Christian King." Those who chose to recognize Jesus as the Messiah were generally members of a Jewish sect known as "The Way." Abgar VIII may have been a Christian in the early third century before the Roman occupation of Edessa.

Rucker does not propose that the neutron radiation was collumated. That would not make sense because part of Ruckers' hypothesis is that neutron radiation from the corpse accounts for the eight century radiocarbon dating of the Sudarium. Neutron radiation is not proposed as a mechanism for the formation of the images. Proton radiation is a possibilty. See: "Image Formation by Protons," Lind, 2017

The Rodgers/Marino hypothesis of a secret, invisible repair has been falsified several times over. 1. There is no credible reason for such a repair to have been kept secret. the repair work of the Poor Clare nuns was documented. 2. Modern repair work of this type is done using microscopes, and these were not available in the 16th century. 3. The range of the C-14 data is too small for the repair hypothesis. Some of the Shroud samples should have contained mostly old material that dated to ancient times. Some should have been mostly new material that dated to the 16th century. 4. An ancient watermark runs right through the supposedly rewoven corner. 5. The Sudarium of Oviedo has been carbon dated to the 8th century three times. The reweaving idea does not explain that anomaly. 6. Dr. Flury-Lemberg is the leading textile expert on the Shroud. In 2002 she examined both sides of the Shroud with the reweaving hypothesis in mind and concluded that there has been no repair work on any of the Shroud's corners. Her paper can be found on shroudxxx. 7. The neutron absoption hypothesis explains the characteristics of the Shroud's radiocarbon readings and also explains why the Sudarium dates to the 8th century by radiocarbon. shroudresearch/robertrucker I thank Mr. Tseng for his work in promoting the authenticity of the Holy Shroud, but the reweaving hypothesis is easily falsified by Shroud skeptics.

I wonder if Rev. Tseng is ever going to either address my comments or change his own comments? After all, his VLOG is only six days old. I would think that he would be availalbe for answering comments.

The Sign of Jonah cannot be Jesus' resurrection. That event certainly qualifies as a sign from Heaven, but in Mark 8 Jesus emphatically stated that no sign from Heaven would be given to first century Israel (i.e. "this generation.") The reason that the miracle of Jesus' resurrection does not violate the Markan prohibition is because Jesus' post-mortem living appearances were limited to less than 1000 people (2 COR.) That number does not qualify as "this generation." It also is too small to qualify as "an evil and unfaithful generation," which is the amount of people specified in Matthew 12. The Sign of Jonah that actually was given to first century Israel was the sign of Jesus' ministry as defined in Luke 11. This was the ONLY sign to be given to "this generation," and there obviously cannot be two "only signs" for the same era. This Sign of Jonah (Jesus' ministry) does not violate the Markan prohibition of a sign from heaven. It is an earthly sign. In Matthew 12 Jesus defines the sign of Jonah that will be given to some unspecified future generaton by way of a prophecy that his burial would be for a duration of less than 72 hours. This is where the church fathers got the idea that the Sign of Jonah was Jesus' resurrection since the prophet Jonah was brought back to life after his interment in the fish's belly. However, Jesus had no reason to be cryptic about his prediction of resurrection. The authorities were well aware of it (that is why they requested a guard at the tomb.) And, when Jesus actrally did predict his resurrection, he did not frame that event in terms of "the sign of Jonah.' Scientific findings on the Holy Shroud have enabled us to solve the mystery of the Sign of Jonah found in Matthew 12. The church fathers can be forgiven for their mistake because they did not have the archaeological information that is now available in the 21st century.

The evidence on the Shroud does not indicate that Jesus returned to earth in a living human body after his execution. What the evidence on the Shroud does tell us is that Jesus' corpse vanished from the inside of a sealed tomb. That evidence also proves that Jesus was a real first century person who performed miracles. If Jesus' resurrection is defined as his return to this world in a human body, then the scientific evidence on the Shroud does not prove that such an event took place. It certainly makes it easier to believe that Jesus' resurrection actually happened, but the evidence does not prove it.

Jesus predicted that his burial would be for a duration of less than 72 hours, and he said this would be the Sign of Jonah that would be given to "an evil and unfaithful generation," but he did not say which era that body of people would belong to. 20th century photography of the Shroud allowed scientists to determine from the forensic evidence on the Shroud's images that Jesus' corpse had not begun to decompose and was still in a state of rigor mortis when his burial cloth was removed. Those findings prove that his burial had been for a duration of less that 72 hours. Therefore, we can conclude that the miraculous images of Jesus' corpse on the Holy Shroud are the Sign of Jonah that Jesus promised to an evil and unfaithful generation because these images confirm his prophecy about burial duration. The alternative idea that some disciples secretly moved Jesus' corpse to burial tomb does not hold up. In first century Jewish law, post-mortem blood issues had to be interned with the deceased, and a burial shroud was used to facilitate compliance with that requirement. If men were able to carry away a 170-pound body, they certainly would have been able to remove three pounds of essential cloth. But we know that the burial cloths were not removed.

Lol.... 😅

Enjoyed this session as well. Oliver, you said you are 99% certain that the Shroud is authentic. Just wondering, what's the 1% holding you back?

Promo-SM 🌹

Hi Oliver, thanks for your 3 weeks of sharing. It is a good compilation of most of the information regarding this most-important Christianity icon from the past. Just a shout out of appreciation for the hard work in doing these summaries! If you have materials for weeks 5, 6 etc, please keep going!

Oliver I appreciate your efforts to share info about the Shroud. Regarding the 3 theories of what route the Shroud took during "The Missing Years", Dr Jack Markwardt has written a very compelling book regarding this topic. There are 3 leading hypotheses - through the Templars, through Geoffrey de Charnay's wife - Jean de Vergy / and a through the Geoffrey de Charnay directly from his older relative - Jean de Joinville who was the right hand man of King Louis, St Louis. Of these 3, the 3rd explanation is the most compelling. Markwardt's book is "The Hidden History of the Shroud of Turin". Markwardt is well respected by people like Dr John Jackson/USAF who let the STURP team in 1978. So my point is - people say 'The Templars took it", that really is nothing more than a hypothesis, which is overshadowed by more compelling evidence relating to St Louis.

Oh, come on. This must have been debunked 100 times by now.

great presentation dear sir! i subscribed to your channel a while ago, i cant wait to the next shroud lecture

Holographic Shroud

One of the best presentations I've seen on the shroud. Thank you

the arguments against the carbon dating seem incredibly nit picky to me. they used 3 labs instead of 7: how many labs are typically involved in carbon dating? do we discard a test just because one lab is involved? it seems to me that at 3 labs, the scientists were already being extremely thorough the sample was contaminated: yes, that's why all the labs cleaned their samples thoroughly before testing the entire process wasn't video taped: what is being alleged here? that the sample was swapped? how could they have got away with that given the uniqueness of the shroud material? who would have done that? if you think there is some misdeed here, say it; don't just imply it; otherwise, why should anyone care that they didn't film every part of the process? someone was both a member of the British Museum and the Oxford lab? frankly, who cares? I could go on, but all of these points have the same problem: they don't address the fact that every single carbon dating test that was performed on the Turin shroud produced a date that was not 1st century. where is your explanation for that?

This is great. Thank you.. Amen😊

If all of the c-14 data was calculated, what would be the p value (must be 5 to be valid)?

Cave painters may have used a form of airbrushing by blowing colored earths through reeds/plant straws. FYI. Was there rabbit skin/animal hide glue, egg or resins on the shroud? These would be the artistic tools in the medieval period.

PCA Church doing a multipart presentation on the Shroud. Interesting!

I truly enjoyed your analysis on the Shroud of Turin. I am looking forward for the other talks you will have on the shroud! Thank you !

To all those who study the Shroud with the sole purpose to disprove it to the rest of us who merely see it and have the GOOD SENSE TO BELIEVE... SAVE IT. Happily go on to your eternal reward in hell and STFU. We don't care what YOU THINK. Seriously, prove it a fake to your OWN self's contentment in Hell. No man gets to Heaven by facts, but by FAITH ALONE.

I hope you add this to your presentations. When scripture says John saw the cloths and 'believed', it wasnt because he could see the image on the Shroud from the door way, because the image is only on the inside of the shroud, facing the body. A closer translation to the original is he saw the cloths lying FLAT. As in, the body had dematerialized and the cloth fell flat in place. That woukd cause anyone to believe in the ressurection. The body could have been stolen, but the cloth would be taken with the body. Why would they unwrapp it to steal it? Seeing the cloth lying flat then, is what caused him to believe in the ressurection, not that the tomb was empty. Huge point to grasp.

The blood is still red because of bilirubin. Severe Torture causes bilirubin to build up in blood, which keeps it red. Try faking THAT. Even Davinci couldnt have found a willing model to endure that!!

Someone who Can do research needs to find the names of a few who the Savoys gave gifts of threads from the edge of the shroud in the 1500's, and track where those threads went. Then get the current owners to carbon date those well documented threads. Bet that would shut the ahteists up.

A better translation of when John looked into the empty tomb and saw the cloths lying and believed...is he saw the cloths lying FLAT. As in the body had dematerialized and the cloths had fallen flat in place. That would cause anyone to believe. The body could have been stolen but the cloths would have been taken with the body or at least waded up and cast aside after unwrapping the body. But Why would anyone do THAT?? So...John believes in the ressurrection - because he's not stupid.

hello dear sir, i enjoyed your first 2 videos of the shroud very much and cant wait for the next one! can you tell me when you will upload the third one?

Total waste of time, title is clickbait, no mention of new discoveries suddenly discovered under the sands of Egypt, they're are lying.

Hi, Oliver, how good of you to respond. Claim 1) The evidence for and against the authenticity of the Shroud is nuanced, so I'm not a fan of the "Summary of STURP's Conclusions" which was "written by John Heller (in non-technical language) and distributed at the press conference held after STURP's final meeting in October 1981." It's a bit abrupt. Better to read the peer-reviewed and published "Summary of the 1978 Investigation" by Larry Schwalbe and Ray Rogers, which is much less dogmatic, and also the list of questions at the back of the 1984 STuRP proposals, which include "Is there a correlation between image shading and iron (or other inorganic) concentration in the body image? " and "In what temporal order did the blood and body images physically appear on the Shroud?" and even "Are the blood images human blood?" all of which suggest that these were not fully answered by the 1978 investigation. Heller and Adler suggested that some of iron that they did identify on the cloth had become fixed as part of a process similar to the dyeing of khaki. They assumed that this was a) uniform all over the cloth, and b) derived from the retting process of the flax. The first is denied by Morris, Schwalbe and London’s X-Ray Fluorescence measurements, and there is no evidence for the second. Claim 2) Identifying artworks as genuine or fake has always been one of the principal occupations of McCrone Associates, and still is. An obituary on the American Chemical society website includes the quote "Anyone who's gone through a graduate program in art conservation knows him, his name, has his pigment handout, or their teacher was taught by him," by one Eugena Ordonez of the Museum of Modern Art in New York. An article in the Journal of Forensic Science by David Stoney details several of McCrone's investigations into artworks. Whether he was right about the Shroud is a matter of opinion, but his superiority in experience of and expertise in the identification of artwork compared to the weapons specialists of STuRP is not. As an artwork the Shroud is not particularly impressive at all, let alone the most impressive artwork known to man. Its extraordinary quasi-negative and 3D properties make it impressive, but these were almost certainly not known about or intended by the craftsman who made it. It is probably a primitive wood-block experiment. The cathedrals, abbeys and museums of the world are stuffed with remarkable medieval artefacts, from architectural features to statues, tapestries and paintings, of whose provenance and creator we know nothing. The Shroud may or may not have been unique in its time, but as it does not fit into a category of similar works today, it is difficult to include it in a study unless it is studied on its own, and lack of access to to its most remarkable qualities has deterred any serious art historical analysis. Finally, one of the authors I mentioned above said that he thought art historians were put off by the personal abuse from authenticists that invariably follows any declaration that the Shroud is medieval. Claim 3) My mistake. When you referred to experiments with both image and blood, I didn’t realise you meant with the blood first. You didn’t say so. I doubt if such experiments are likely to be carried out by medievalists, as we don’t think the blood did appear first. The evidence that it did is sketchy at best. Most authenticists, of course, don’t believe any such experiments are posible, as they can’t do miracles. I dare say David Rolfe (not Wolfe) could write a list of specifications, but he hasn’t yet, as far as I know. You ask, “If a medieval artist created it, shouldn't we be able to create it within a reasonable degree of similarity?” and yes, we have, numerous times. Specifically, the negative, 3D and superficial qualities of the image are quite easy to replicate with a sketch. The lack of pigment is a bone of contention: we don’t know how much there is, and more importantly how much there was when it was made. Claim 4) Technically, the Shroud could be medieval and not an artwork, but I take the radiocarbon date as an assurance that it is both medieval and an artwork. In this section of your talk you do not refute the medieval date; you’re denying it. They are two different classes of argument. It has never been demonstrated that the radiocarbon date was wrong. Attempts have been made to show that it was invalid (unsuccessful in my opinion), but even if it was, that does not show that the Shroud is not medieval. Claim 5) You’re welcome to dispute the legitimacy of the d’Arcis memo; many people do. However, the only evidence that it is disputable is that the Shroud is authentic, which is precisely the reason for disputing it in the first place. This is a circular argument and does not hold much water. I could write a great deal more regarding this and the previous lecture, but I won’t unless requested, firstly because I’m not sure it would be read by anyone, but mostly my point is not that one or other viewpoint utterly trumps the other, but that Shroud study is inconclusive and ongoing, and as long as I have been allowed this platform, I think that point has been made satisfactorily. Best wishes, Hugh

I understand that you are trying to keep it scientifically correct But, It's a well known fact that the shroud was repaired . They fixed it because of fire and water damage. So the sample was from a fixed part of the Shroud . This is why it came up with those dates.

They Have explained why the blood is still red. When someone has died in a very painful way Their blood will remain red even when it is dried. It has to do with hemoglobin and oxygen in the blood.

Hi Oliver, As a prominent medievalist, I take your "Arguments Against a Forgery" as a bit of a challenge, and would like to respond. You begin with an appeal to authority, not unreasonably, specifically a declaration by one of the STuRP team, supported by some, but not all, of his colleagues: "No pigments, paints, dyes or stains have been found on the fibrils. It is not the product of an artist." The main objections to this are firstly that the second sentence is not a necessary corollary to the first, secondly that other scientists have most assuredly found pigments, dyes or stains on the fibrils, and thirdly that the STuRP scientists had no experience or education in identifying artwork anyway. Your second argument is that art historians have largely neglected to consider the Shroud as an artwork. Why this should negate it as an artwork escapes me. It is a non-sequitur. However, you will know that Gary Vikan, Director of the Walters Art Museum in Baltimore, has written a book describing the Shroud as a fake, and that it was also described as a fake by Martin Kemp, Emeritus Professor of the History of Art at Oxford University, and Hans Belting, Professor at the Institute for Art History and Media Theory at the State College of Design in Karlsruhe. Your third argument is that the Shroud has not been replicated. This is a common claim, which hides a deeper meaning. Very few artworks have been "replicated," so the fact that the Shroud hasn't either should not be a surprise. Very many artworks have been copied, and the Shroud has been copied many times. The definition of a "successful" copy would be necessary for your argument to be meaningful. Luigi Garlaschelli made a copy including both the image and the bloodstains. You go on to infer that because a "successful" copy, by your definition, has not been made, that it is therefore impossible. I'm afraid I think that is a weak argument. Your fourth claim, although I'm not sure you quite realise that this is what you are saying, is that the Shroud cannot be medieval because the radiocarbon date is invalid. Put like that, you must see the error of the argument. However, as it happens the radiocarbon date is securely medieval, and powerful evidence that the Shroud is, indeed, an artwork. The mixed bag that make up "Number 5" are all good arguments in favour of the Shroud being medieval, which you claim you will debunk at another time. As such I will defer my objections to your objections until then, and simply affirm that I think both the fourteenth century Bishop Pierre d'Arcis and the twentieth century microscopist Walter McCrone both honestly reported what they observed. That'll do for now; Best wishes, Hugh

R9MAN CATHOLICS WORSHIP THE HOLY TRINITY, THE FATHER, SON, AND HOLY GHOST. Anticatholic propaganda is taking the same turn antisemitic propaganda took in the 20th Century. It's religious persecution, displays of contempt, insults, false accusations, ridic, etc. Religious persecution is a violation of civil rights under the US Constitution. The C14 test samples were taken from an obvious patch, and a painting from the Middle Ages even shows the ladies adding the patch. The samples were later, added cloth with cotton stitches. They haven't replicated the image on linen, because they can't. The fact that the image is on linen is evidence enough that it's a miracle. Plant fibers don't take dyes. The chemistry of dyeing plant fibers is complex. If the shroud were dyed, the image would have faded out, and the mordent and pigment would be evident.

The main argument against authenticity and that could be enough on its own: the dimensions are not correct. The VP-8 only found 3D info of a bas-relief (about 3cm deep) and not of a whole body. It is a second operation, made from these results, which recreated a body with a program to add the correct dimensions of a body. We find a 3D body because we implemented a program to have a 3D body. This second operation can be considered artistic at best, fraud at worst. A body printed on a sheet renders an image which lengthens as it moves away from the center and which breaks up with the folds of the fabric or simply the extension of its surface because of the curve it takes. The hair must mark in a more blurred and light way, even stick to the skull since it is the blood which must mark. The sheet must be excessively stretched so as not to end up in places with hollows also represented but only the full ones. For that, the mark is in this sense too delimited. Where have the sides gone? Why would Jesus' followers have stretched the sheet above and below (what supports the body in this diagram?) so as to mark only the solids and not the sides? it doesn't make any sense. Ah and then given the small distance between the back and the front of the head, it seems impossible that the top of the skull did not print the fabric and therefore not connect the two. There is a difference of almost 7 cm between the frontal image and the dorsal image. The arms are too long (just enough to hide the genitals) as are the fingers. The forehead is too small. The body is surprisingly very large for the time of Jesus but much less when compared to the figure of the medieval knight. Even assuming that the body is bent (the use of rigor mortis here is more of a magic solution that comes to counter attacks on proportions with bogus assumptions) it does not explain all the proportions more than 'unusual (like fingers). Especially since the folded body does not change the fact that we have the choice between a tempera technique on bas-relief on one side (which explains the dimensions and makes it possible to have a task with similar characteristics such as the showed the various experiments made) and a body in suspension which is printed thanks to a magic ray on a sheet itself in suspension. And then the shot of the bent body also increases the problem of the front/back junction of the skull because a bent body requires an even longer sheet and changes the deformation of the image even more. The sample for carbon dating was carried out by three sindonologists (hard to say that they would have failed on purpose) including experts in ancient textiles (if they are not able to recognize a more recent piece of stitched fabric from almost a millennium and a half so there is a big problem) on a rectangular piece taken from the bottom left of the ventral image and specifically far from any damaged or stitched part (it can be seen with the naked eye). The sample was then sent to three prestigious independent laboratories recognized for their excellence in this method and whose results are consistent with each other (the shroud was woven with flax harvested between 1260 and 1390) and with the appearance of the shroud in the story. The fires of 1532 added scorch and water marks (to put out the fire) to this one but that's not enough to discredit the carbon dating. The ad hoc hypothesis of contamination by a fungus which would have distorted the dating is contradicted by the calculations made by Henri Brock which shows that the fungus should have brought twice as much carbon as the laundry currently contains. His calculations also show that the fire should have contributed twice as much carbon as the laundry contains if the fire only dated back to 1800 and more than 5 times for 1500. It should not be forgotten either that any dating carbon is preceded by a cleaning phase to remove the carbon pollution. The ad hoc hypothesis of proton bombardment is itself such a mystery that it absolutely cannot pass Ockham's razor and totally contradicts the laws of physics. There is an excellent scientific article which presents the carbon dating of 1988, the extreme precautions and guarantees that have been taken so as not to make any mistakes (great media pressure) as well as the immediate and unsurprising desire of believers to pass this dating for bad because it does not validate their beliefs. It also presents the subsequent unsuccessful attempts to contradict this dating by ad hoc hypotheses and by other datings, but whose methodological biases were too great to draw anything from them, until recently and far from completly refuting this dating. The opinion also of Christopher Ramsey (director of the AMS laboratory in Oxford at the time of writing the article and a specialist in carbon dating) is reported there, who accepts the idea of a new dating with other techniques (tested these and not created for the shroud) in the hope that it will allow believers to no longer take pleasure in the denial of scientific results which in the long term will make it possible to clean up the scientific debate. The article in question dates from December 23, 2013, was written by Richard CORFIELD and is entitled "Chemistry in the face of belief". However, it is more easily found by searching for "The enduring controversy of the Turin Shroud". Quote from Christopher Ramsey in 2008: "I'm always willing to consider any serious suggestions of why the dating might not be correct and to do further tests to investigate such suggestions. In this sense, i keep an open mind - as I would about any scientific investigation. However, my strong intuition, based on my experience in this field, is that the new hypothesis will not challenge the accuracy of the original radiocarbon dating exercise." This position is shared by all specialists in radio-carbon dating. Jacques Evin, for example, gives a very similar opinion. In 2019, T. Casabianca (accustomed to publications on the Turin's shroud) published a study in the journal Archaeometry, which showed a lack of homogeneity in the raw carbon dating data, without proving an ancient origin. Indeed, Walsh Bryan and Schwalbe Larry show in 2020 in their article "An instructive inter-laboratory comparison: The 1988 radiocarbon dating of the Shroud of Turin" that only a few decades of difference are necessary to reach the 95% reliability announced in 1988. In 2005, Raymond Roger, member of STURP, published a study (R.N.Rogers, “Studies on the radiocarbon sample from the shroud of turin.”, Thermochimica Acta, 425 (2005), p. 189-194.) which claimed to show that the dating of 1988 is false because made on patched parts. It is based on the vanillin level of the fibers taken, on a Wiesner test and claims both to demonstrate the invalidity of the 1988 dating but also to date the shroud itself to an age between 1300 and 3000 years. Many problems with this study: We have no guarantee where the sample comes from or its storage conditions. This one was given to him by Luigi Gonella who claims to hold it from the 1988 levy but no proof is provided, only his word. Nothing says that it is not a fabric from a totally different origin. The heat from the Shroud's fire was more than enough to vaporize the Vanillin from the surface of the Shroud in seconds and even much less. Rogers' dating method is unique, unprecedented and therefore not at all well-established, unlike that of 1988, which leads to suspicion. The values of the Wiesner test were taken in a perfectly arbitrary way. The analysis is made on a surface sample only (by adhesive) and without taking into account surface phenomena. It misses the margins of error of various numerical values, sources and references while various errors suggest that Rogers probably did not pass the peer review or that he found a way to cheat with it. In 1973, an analysis of the pollens and the dust of the linen concluded to a passage of this one in Jerusalem at the time of Jesus. Problem: the study lacks considerable precision, other pollens which should have been there (if this was the case) are not, as well as the calcyte deposited on the pollens during the fire of 1532 and the images of criminologist Max Fry strangely do not show traces of the fire (a good classic fraud in sight) which is explained by the admission of this one according to which he had taken reference images and not the real ones images of the shroud pollens. For Marzia Boi in 2010: her work is neither in agreement with previous pollen surveys and their expectations, nor in agreement with the study by Gianni Barcaccia who speaks to us squarely of pollen coming from East Africa until to China, the two willingly forgetting that the Shroud was not always kept well protected but was even exposed to the public (the degradation of the pollen is therefore quite different from the ideal state they imagine) on different occasions during which an audience of believers from all over the world could come to see him. It is not really possible to determine with precision and certainty the geographical origin of a pollen. A palynologist will tell you that we can (at best) determine the biological family to which he belongs and then see in which places in the world this family has been found over the ages, but there again it remains excessively unreliable and imprecise.