Is the Shroud of Turin Real?
Вставка
- Опубліковано 12 лип 2024
- Hey Noble ones! Thank you so much for checking out this video! If you wish to support my work here is a link to my spring shop for the Christmas Special limited edition t-shirts!
tinyurl.com/5n6ffu3r
tinyurl.com/3rjfhx55
And a Link to the Collaboration with Shad from Shadiversity channel t shirts
tinyurl.com/yc2puhah
Support my work on Patreon!
/ themetatron
Also here are links for your personal research on the Shroud
Here is a link to the TSC
www.shroudofturin.com/
And further research material:
• DIBATTITO SULLA SACRA ... 51:59
0201.nccdn.net/1_2/000/000/10...
www.shroudresearch.net/hproxy...
magiscenter.com/wp-content/up...
www.shroudofturin.com/Resourc...
www.google.com/search?q=is+th...
%3F&oq=is+the+shroud+of+turin+a+fake
%3F+&aqs=chrome..69i57j0i22i30j0i390l2.3691j1j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negativ...
%20negative%20is,the%20darkest%20areas%20appear%20lightest.
www.enzopennetta.it/2015/10/u...
www.audible.com/pd/Interview-...
www.shroudofturin.com/founder...
• “Overview of the Shrou...
Also Check out Giulio Fanti's work and books on the matter
#shroud #jesus #history
Hey Noble ones! Thank you so much for checking out this video! If you wish to support my work here is a link to my Spring shop for the Christmas Special limited edition t-shirts!
tinyurl.com/5n6ffu3r
tinyurl.com/3rjfhx55
And a Link to the Collaboration with Shad from Shadiversity channel t shirts
tinyurl.com/yc2puhah
And/Or Support my work on Patreon!
www.patreon.com/themetatron
Thanks!
Can you do a video about roman legion switching line during battle?
I really enjoyed the video! Ihave a question about the carbon dating. You mentioned the even coating of Iron Oxide being a possible byproduct of dry copies being put up against the fabric, do you think that the multitude of these copies could have been enough to potentially push that radio carbon clock forward?
In *my* opinion, your last point on there being absolutely *no* mention of an image in the gospels is *proof* that the shroud of Turin is a forgery, simply on the basis that an image would *definitely* have been noteworthy enough to warrant a mention in them.
Also, while it's not surprising that Constantinople was a Christian city at the time, since it was literally *founded* by the first Christian emperor of Rome, Constantine "the great", it's also pretty interesting to know that *other* Christians sieged and plundered it during the Crusades. Sure it was forbidden to attack Christian settlements, but not only were Christian countries always fighting each other over any petty difference in beliefs, but the Crusaders were brainwashed into believing their sins would be absolved if they went on Crusade, and so felt morally *righteous* while committing some of the *worst atrocities* imaginable.
Finally, it's interesting you pointed some contradictions in the bible out, because Celsus wrote a thesis on the logical fallacies of Christianity and a lot of its truly *evil* practices dating all the way back to 117 or 177 AD (can't remember which of those dates it was for sure), back around the time Christianity was just starting out, that makes it clear that Christianity has literally *always* been the way it is today, and lends a new perspective on why the Romans were so *hellbent* on stamping Christianity out when they didn't have a problem with other religions; until the Christians managed to slip one of their *own* onto the throne of emperor and *force* the entire empire to convert, murdering the ones that *refused* to that is (oh, and fun fact, it wasn't until *after* its conversion to Christianity that the Roman empire fell for *good* ). The channel "Voices of the Past" did a video summarizing some of the most important points in his thesis, and a video narrating a Japanese emissary members writings on America, in the New York section of which he points out how strange a lot of writings in the Bible are, and how *easy* Christian arguments are to defeat; I think it'd be interesting if you did a video on those at some point.
@Metatron, at about 30:25, you mention that Athanasius said that Christians fled to Antioch ahead of the siege of Jerusalem. There is another event that happened in 69AD known as the Flight to Pella. In the year 68, Nero died, and immediately, there was a crisis of imperial succession in Rome. Vespasian was recalled to Rome to deal with the crisis, and the siege of Jerusalem was put on hold. Year 69 became the year of four emperors, as each successor was assassinated by the next. By the time everything settled down in late 69, Vespasian himself had become emperor.
Christians in Jerusalem saw that it was surrounded by armies, and they remembered from Jesus' teaching (recorded in Luke 21) "“But when you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies, then know that its desolation has come near. Then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains, and let those who are inside the city depart, and let not those who are out in the country enter it, for these are days of vengeance, to fulfill all that is written." So they evacuated Jerusalem and fled to the other side of the Jordan. Pella was apparently their prime destination, but Antioch is also in that general direction, though further away. Eusebius of Caesarea and Epiphanius of Salamis both cite this tradition. Athanasius may be recording additional information that Eusebius and Ephiphanius missed.
After all the Christians had evacuated Jerusalem and Judea, the siege of Jerusalem resumed in ernest in 70AD under the leadership of Titus. In heeding Jesus' warning, they were spared the horrifying destruction of Jerusalem and the slaughter of its people.
That reminds me of one old documentary on the shroud, not sure if it was NatGeo or Discover, but I know there were several interesting points in this documentary that I was expecting to maybe see here unless you found out they got debunked during your research
1#: relating to the carbon dating controversy, in recording the procedure there was a half-hour gap, more than enough to do pretty much whatever with the samples they got, not just swap them for something else, and I must agree this is something that should have to happen in a serious scientific project, and shouldn't;t happen if we're ever to try and repeat it tho supposedly right now we would need to get samples for the burn marks as some recent conservation works using a carbon-based preservation compound that would falsify the results, and that only burn marks would be a reliable source
2#: I don't remember the name of the researcher but he was part of this documentary he supposedly found traces of possible repair works done on the shroud, a patch of linen that was not only woven differently from the rest but also dyed when there was no dye on the rest, and supposedly he found it really close to the patch that was used as the sample for the carbon dating, theorizing that this sample could be a medieval repair work, and reason for the result, he also theorized it could be possible due to linen weaving techniques of the past still being relatively well known and commonly used in middle ages
3#: another theory from dis documentary is that in the Gospels there was mention of Jesus' body being covered in red myrrh before it was wrapped in a shroud, which was odd for the burial procedure but was also considered a hit that Jesus wasn't dead, and people burying him were aware of it so they covered him in substance that was regarded as a medicine, and it gets heated up by Jesus feverish caused the chemical reaction responsible for the image
Honestly, it was years ago when I watched this documentary, and not sure if it can be found somewhere out there in the wilderness of the internet but if it is still out there maybe a follow-up video would be a good idea
And personally, I think that regardless of which way the debate settles down on, be it on it being fake or authentic, the implications of both are truly fascinating things to consider, also it's current status is honestly quite hypocritical, it's revered for possibly ties to Jesus himself but at the same time church don't want people to confirm it definitely because then it would deliver a lot of evidence that the Resurrection of Jesus wasn't really a restriction at all undermining one of the core foundations of Christianity... but at the same time I feel like if we're in this just for this miracle and not for Jesu' teachings, it would prove how weak of faith a lot of people are
As a Christian I am always skeptical of holy artifacts, and I found this was very interesting.
You should look up our lady of Guadalupe apparition as well. I'm very skeptical, but the shroud and that one are artificts I genuinely believe are real
Our Lady of Fatima is an undeniable apparition too. Attested by tens of thousands, making into papers and stuff. There are people alive still, that were there that day.
@Nimai An undeniable psyop
@@j.b.kingsbury7221 how is it a psyop
oh really but you are not skeptical of THE HOLY BIBLE? It’s right in your face, the words that make up the title of your holy book.
Before watching this video I was more sceptical of the Shroud of Turin, however listening to the facts of the case especially the possible historical route of the shroud from Jerusalem to Constantinople, France and on to Turin, the type of linen and the evidence that no natural explanations can be found for how the image is on the cloth have made me reconsider.
Thank you for your time and effort which went into making this thorough and unbiased video.
My pleasure and thank you for watching
The Shroud is easily reproducible, in all its properties, with the frottage technique (medieval technology of course). It was reproduced for the first time in 2009 by Luigi Garlaschelli, a chemist at the University of Pavia:
L. Garlaschelli. Life-Size Reproduction of the Shroud of Turin and its Image. J. Imaging Sci. and Technol., 54 (4) 2010, in press
This reproduction replicates all its properties, 100%, including the bas-relief detected with 3D information, exactly like the Turin Shroud. As you can verify, there is no mystery. Please reply to the peer reviewed scientific publication only with other peer reviewed scientific publications. I'm not interested in personal opinions. I consider any comment not supported by scientific documentation as a confirmation of the scientific documentation that I have indicated.
@@JoutenShin This does not explain the chemical reaction. The visual representation of the body is visible because it was imprinted with said chemical reaction. The blood is real, the water is real, making the assumption of it being frottage easly refutable.
@@NunoFilipe-yx4lx The representation was obtained in the experiments via frottage which generates the chemical reaction.
@@francescoghizzo Yes, thank you! It was multiple times debunked. It's absolutely interesting, but a fake.
One thing to think about when discussing the gospel accounts is it said the disciple went into the tomb, saw the linen cloth and believed.
It’s interesting that he saw the cloth and “believed” as if there was something special about the cloth.
35:37 they were supposed to take five different sample from different areas. They took one thread , and cut it five times, and they knew what they were doing. Thanks for keeping it real.
Yea, also important to mention that it took them 20 YEARS to release the results from the carbon dating tests. They did not want to prove it genuine.
@@robbieg.3462 i heard as our technology progresses new mysteries questions needing answers arise from the shroud. At first I thought it was a selfie from his corpse, as a kind of a joke. Then I find out that it’s actually a video (of sorts, a still one.) and that the light which seared the image came both from within and without the body . Some place so incredibly distant although these rays describe a sphere different geometric measurements are needed because the lines appear parallel. Brother, let me tell you. Some days I get really frightened…then I laugh, after crying. I am so happy so happy ! He’s coming back!!!
conspiracy theories and religious people go together like peanutbutter and jelly
@@EcoCentrist but i thought you guys liked science and facts? so when science contradicts you it's a conspiracy theory?
@@brah9249 they did science, the cloth was successfully carbon dated. this revealed that the shroud - like much of religion - is fake. there is zero evidence the scientists conspired in any way to commit fraud or skew the test, hence making such accusations as valid as claims that the initial moon landing was faked.
it would be just as likely that the curators understood casting doubt on one sample is much easier than five, so they only allowed one to be taken. the difference between us: i would never present this conjecture as fact because i understand what kind of evidence is required to claim something is factual.
18 minutes in and I think Metatron has touched on more material than an hour long documentary I saw on the shroud on either the Discovery or History channel. And I havent finished the video yet, but I am sure he wont loop back on previous things he said and endless hammer away at assinine points. YTers of this quality blow modern day tv production out of the water in terms of the depth they delve into subjects.
Why do you even want to learn about Jesus from channels that are associated with atheists? As a Christian, you should be guided in your research and examination about your religion/faith by your own church so you have a better perspective.
@@jerrytang3146 You need to both, its good to learn with non biased people
@@vecturhoff7502 I agree that we need to learn from multiple sources, but I wouldn't call atheism as "non biased". Specially History Channel.
@@jerrytang3146 I don’t want to insult your intelligence but have you heard of this thing called “confirmation bias”?
@@luisoncpp your ideological enemy could give you insight though. And an atheist will never jump to conclusions because of his faith, since he lacks faith.
They might jump to conclusions because they wanna discredit the subject, though I don’t think Metatron would ever do that.
This was the best documentary on the shroud I've seen. No off-the-wall theories, unbiased display of the facts and great historical facts I wasn't aware of. Excellent work sir!
We've come a long way from the history channel
No Ancient Aliens either 🤣🤣🤣
strongly recomend videos of Barry Schwartz - oficial photographer of Shroud Team of the 70-ies.
- [ ] I am ashamed that the current leadership of the Church does not make it clear the shroud is a fake. They hide behind the obscurity of terms like “icon”
* The shroud is also contrary to the description in the Gospel. Look it up.
“Then Simon Peter came, following him, and went into the tomb. He saw the linen wrappings lying there, and the cloth that had been on Jesus’ head, not lying with the linen wrappings but rolled up in a place by itself.”
* We have no reliable documentation of the Shroud of Turin’s existence until the fourteenth century.
* The forger who made the Shroud of Turin confessed and the earliest definitive mention of the shroud in any historical source is a record of his confession.
* The Shroud of Turin doesn’t match the kinds of funerary wrappings used in Judaea in the time of Jesus or the description of Jesus’s own funerary wrappings given in the Gospel of John.
* The linen of the Shroud of Turin has been securely dated using radiocarbon dating to between c. 1260 and c. 1390 AD-well over a millennium after Jesus’s death.
* The figure on the Shroud of Turin does not have anatomically correct proportions and much more closely resembles figures in fourteenth-century Gothic art than a real human being.
* The bloodstains on the Shroud of Turin are not consistent with how blood actually flows naturally and they instead appear to have been painted on.
* The fabric of the Shroud of Turin is made with a kind of weave that is known to have been commonly used during the Late Middle Ages, but does not seem to have been used for burial shrouds in Judaea in the first century AD.
@@Mark-nh2hs- Alien Jesus.
Metatron you rock man and thank you for sacrificing sponsor money for our better enjoyment (you did not have to do that and it did not go unnoticed!).
Thanks I appreciate you kind words
Typically when it comes to radiocarbon dating another factor to consider is the time window in which the object was purported to have originated. That is not the case here, as carbon's window is 50,000 years - placing '2023 years ago' well within its effective window.
It typically comes up with older things, such as fossils - which are many many millions of years old. People (frequently but not exclusively young earth creationists) have a tendency sometimes to claim that 'we don't *really* know how old they are because carbon dating isn't accurate for things that old'. While yes, carbon won't work for objects that old... there is an entire table of 118 elements each with their own radiological windows. Typically for really old things, we use radium. Not carbon. The general public doesn't know/care, though, and just calls it 'carbon dating' regardless of what element was actually used, causing the confusion.
It makes me wonder - if we performed another radiological dating experiment with the shroud, would it be worth checking other elements with similar windows - not just carbon - in order to verify the accuracy of the original findings... like say... iron... or rather... the oxygen attached to the iron. We know that there are iron oxides in at least two parts of the shroud - a thin coating on the surface, and the stains near the wrists, side, and feet. We also know that the thin coating *did definitely* originate during the medieval period as they were replicating the image, whereas the other stains would have definitely originated from the time period in which the shroud originated. This would give us a control to ensure, beyond any doubt, whether the dating is indeed correct.
Also; the technique assumes we *_KNOW,_* how much C-14 was contained, in the object, at the time of its formation. We can make educated guesses: We know the material and its chemical composition (i.e. How much carbon it would have, when new), and we have an estimate of the portion of C-14 out of all the carbon, on Earth. We can, thus, multiply the portion of carbon, in the original material, with the portion of C-14 out of all the carbon, in nature; giving us a rough estimate, or a mathematical average. However; we don’t know, if the sample in question followed that average or not; since real life is always full of accidents, and the C-14 is probably not exactly evenly distributed in nature.
They used WAX (Wide angle X-ray) dating method and they rounded it to around 2000 years ago
C-14's half-life is 5730 years, which generally gives us a precision of within 100 years. You may be thinking of Uranium-Thorium dating, which has a half-life of 80,000 years?
@@LincolnDWard why does the WAX (Wide angle X ray) dating method dates it back 2000 years
i have to wonder though, this cloth being through medieval times going from damp medieval castle to damp medieval church, being raised up and displayed probably with incense and such and then the medieval fire and dousing with water to put it out. I wonder how much of that interaction could change the results, especially when there is just a single fiber as the sample. How much contamination would it take to drastically skew the resutls?
The one impression I am left with from the analysis is that the way that Jesus was put to death was unspeakably horrific, painful and humiliating. Even if this isn't 'the'shroud, its a representation of a crucified man and reproduces rhe horrific events of that horrendous death.
My first impression was that it must have been a very tall and athletic 12th century man crucified by the Muslims or by an adverse Christian sect during the Crusades, because the Jesus presented by the Gospels is described as small and frail of stature compared to his contemporaries, from among a people where standard height didn't exceed 5 ft. In that matter conformity to scripture should be the top priority, and there is clearly a mismatch. It was a time in history where many saintly-looking persons were martyred or killed on purpose to produce relics either of themselves as an already established mystic of good repute, either of somebody else resembling and canonized, because relics were the ideal treasures to get rich from selling.
@Judith Mirville
Correct. It was literally a commerce.
However where do you get your Physical description of the Nazarene?
I've read the bible multiple times & I do not recall him ever being described physically.
@@bobbycecere1037 Jesus rode a donkey kid as he triumphed into Jerusalem. Even a donkey buck is too small for most of today's 1m80 high adults to ride unless they manage to sit sideways, hence why donkeys are used to carry loads, luggage, not persons. Had Jesus been the tall Aryan as printed on the shroud, his legs would have been higher above the ground than the animal's back. There were so many alleged pieces of the holy cross in the ME that they could have easily filled up a palace room. Relic fakery was in fullest swing at the date C14 measurement deems most probable (during the Crusades), even though it may be cogently argued that a very "radio-active" person such as certain mystic are may have made the measurement unreliable. Moreover there were several Holy shrouds. Most of relics and miracles are forgeries historically and the Catholic Church is also known to acknowledge them very reluctantly when they do.
@@MrMirville It's pretty unlikely Jesus would be frail, He traveled long distanced and worked with carpenters and fishermen. He was stated to be unremarkable in general appearance. He would have blended in amongst the disciples. The average height would have been around 5' 5". The image on the shroud is said to be of a man ranging from 5' 7" to 6' 2". On the low end 5' 7" would be very reasonable, the high end of 6' 2" would indeed be likely someone else. Also donkeys can quite easily be ridden it's not hard to find photos. Also Romans may have bred much larger donkeys and mules at the time as they've discovered donkeys bred at the Roman villa in Boinville-en-Woëvre measured 155cm around 200AD.
I don't think it's that easy to dismiss this one. There's definitely some doubt with the height, dating, and number of artificial relics. But there's also a lot of mysterious things about how the image was made at all and the extreme attention to detail. I think there's not enough evidence either way to make a definitive conclusion.
Not necessarily. If it is a forgery, then those injuries could have been done after the death of someone that the forger decided looked the part. The injuries were applied to match the description in the bible. It is curious how well it matches. Almost too well.
I have never seen a more comprehensive and unbiased documentary on the shroud than this one. Thank you so much for making it available to us.
I don't know for his others videos (maybe he's usually really accurate) but Metatron didn't did a great work on this video cuz there is a huge lack of science in his sources. He mostly took the speech of sindonologists and their non peer-reviewed papers. On the contrary, most of what he says here is refuted by the scientific studies (peer-reviewed, not like the ones of sindonologists) on the shroud.
No blood attested, wrong pollens and dust, anatomicaly wrong body, 3D informations of a bas-relief and not of a body, pigments founds on plenty places on the shroud, "blood" stains are in an impossible form for a horizontal leaking, anachronic weaving, pictural signs of a medieval work, a common trafic of fakes and relics in medieval time, negative painting is used since the beginning of Paleolithic Era, a lot of "signs" on the shroud are only seen by believers while the others signs are presents in text and others representations in medieval times, the carbon dating seems unaccurate but only by a few (some decades likes shown in Walsh Bryan and Schwalbe Larry's study in 2020) and still medieval, etc.
@@revedargent3467as a professional chemist and published author I saw no issues with his chemistry.
Peer reviewed is not the end all be all. A lot of peer reviewed material is wrong and there’s a ton of internal politicking involved in publications (aka few people are willing to rock the boat in research and actual published material is sometimes presented in a way to not offend a big wig scientist)
@@Dougy359 "his chemistry" ? I don't understand. What are you talking about ?
@@revedargent3467 “He mostly took the speech of sindonologists and their non peer- reviewed papers.” Conclusion not a fact. You have fully taken from skeptics magazine, non peer reviewed papers. And I will support this conclusion by addressing your claims.
You support your conclusion by stating,
“there is a huge lack of science in his sources.”
And “most of what he says here is refuted by the scientific studies”
Okay let’s see how you supported these two claims.
You said “No blood attested” and “Pigments found on plenty places of the shroud”
But the science says you’re wrong.
“No evidence was found in the body image of any added substances that could have contributed to the yellow coloring of the fibers that form the image . The blood images on the cloth are mode of blood.”
(1984 A Comprehensive Examination of the Various Stains and Images on the Shroud of Turin. ACS Advances in Chemistry No. 205 Archaeological Chemistry Ill. Peer reviewed)
You say “anatomically wrong body” assuming you meant “anatomically not a human body”
First of all. The video never addresses the anatomy so non secretor to your claim that the video goes against science. But you’re wrong anyway.
“According to our analysis, the image was created when the body was lying in the supine position, on a hard surface, where the contact between the body and the cloth was controlled by gravity” Archaeometry Volume 60, Issue 6 p. 1377-1390 The Evidence of Crucifixion on the Shroud of Turin Through the Anatomical Traits of the Lower Limbs and Feet. Peer Reviewed
Continued…
@@revedargent3467 “3D informations of a bas-relief and not of a body”
Bas relief is a conclusion not a fact. Science doesn’t make conclusions like that. I already proved that the anatomy fits with a “body lying in supine position”.
"blood" stains are in an impossible form for a horizontal leaking,
“Blood” is not in quotes proved with peer reviewed science that it “test(ed) positive for hemoglobin and serum al-bumin”. But you’re claim that they “are in an impossible form for a horizontal leaking,” the form of the blood is a fact, your conclusion that it is “impossible” when proven by anatomy to placed on a body is unscientific conclusion supported by no peer reviewed analysis.
“a common trafic of fakes and relics in medieval time”
This was addressed in the video. It’s almost as if you aren’t having a good faith conversation of the actual topic and you are just copying a bunch of things off skeptics magazines website.
“a lot of "signs" on the shroud are only seen by believers while the others signs are presents in text and others representations in medieval times,”
Again what does any of this have to do with the video? You’re supposed to be supporting the claim that the video violates science.
“the carbon dating seems unaccurate but only by a few”
Again this is exactly what the video said. Your supposed to be proving the video wrong and not scientific.
“anachronic weaving”
No science
“wrong pollens and dust”
No science.
All of your claims were basically pulled from articles like the “Fake Turin Shroud Deceives National Geographic Author” published by Skeptical Inquirer not a peer reviewed journal.
And you follow the sources to their baseless nonscientific claims, they are all books published by Prometheus Books a secular humanist publication that publishes (shocker) non peer reviewed books.
Excellent detailed summary. I have followed this topic for years. Recent release of data on carbon dating performed on Shroud casts further doubt on medieval dating. Thank you Metatron.
What? What are the chances that the carbon dating was BOTH wrong and yet placed it at the same time that the first reports of the shroud emerged? And the fact the face looks like a European painting of Jesus is also clear evidence. What is the chances that 1500 after his death people in France would be painting Jesus precisely as he really looked, and that carbon dating would precisely error to the date of the first reports. Its near impossible.
THE CARBON DATE WAS PROVEN WRONG THEREFORE you dont research you dont have all the facts
Google "The Radiocarbon Dating of the Turin Shroud: New Evidence from Raw Data"
Here is the abstract:
"In 1988, three laboratories performed a radiocarbon analysis of the Turin Shroud. The results, which were centralized by the British Museum and published in Nature in 1989, provided ‘conclusive evidence’ of the medieval origin of the artefact. However, the raw data were never released by the institutions. In 2017, in response to a legal request, all raw data kept by the British Museum were made accessible. A statistical analysis of the Nature article and the raw data strongly suggests that homogeneity is lacking in the data and that the procedure should be reconsidered."
The lack of homogeneity in the Turin Shroud radiocarbon dating data is a problem because it means that the results of the study cannot be trusted. If the data is not consistent, it means that there may be other factors at play that are affecting the results, such as contamination or human error. This makes it difficult to draw any meaningful conclusions from the study.
Additionally, the lack of transparency from the institutions involved in the study raises questions about the validity of the results. If the raw data was not released until 2017, it means that the study could not be independently verified for 28 years. This is a serious problem, as it means that the results of the study could have been manipulated without anyone's knowledge.
One of the best videos you have ever made I really enjoy when you go in to great detail and i could easily whatch a few hours on this subject.
Since the "Sudario of Oviedo" is mentioned, it's interesting to note that there are blood stains on that cloth, and those stains seem to match those that are in the face region of the figure in the Shroud of Turin, which makes even more likely that it was the matching "face cloth" mentioned by sources.
as an aside, it is a shame that Metatron still has only 660K subs, how can we get this to 1M. I feel like he deserves the 1M. I really hope he passes 2M before 2023 finishes. Godspeed.
Only? I wish him success but 600+K isn’t chop liver.
Yeah, for all the quality contents Metatron had pumped all these years, 600k feels somewhat unsatisfactory for me as a viewer. The contents really qualify for millions of subscribers.
Wish more people would get hooked in 😁
You feel shame for the 600k subs Rafael has on his channel?
Is everything alright?
Let's get it to 666k (number of the beast by Iron Maiden plays in the background)
@@Xaiff Metatron is great but he's not the most approachable guy on youtube what with his Dracula appearance and very cringeworthy approach to many things.
We all see so many videos on this topic. but what i really liked about yours was the very well researched and detailed strategic telling of the data you uncovered. Well Done!!
thanks for this video metatron! very well done! I personally was not aware of the fact that creation of the imprint in-of-itself is a huge mystery, nevermind the historicity of the shroud. Fascinating stuff!
I don't know for his others videos (i just saw one other and he was really accurate in it) but Metatron didn't did a great work on this video cuz there is a huge lack of science in his sources. He mostly took the speech of sindonologists and their non peer-reviewed papers. On the contrary, most of what he says here is refuted by the scientific studies (peer-reviewed, not like the ones of sindonologists) on the shroud.
No blood attested, wrong pollens and dust, anatomicaly wrong body, 3D informations of a bas-relief and not of a body, pigments founds on plenty places on the shroud, "blood" stains are in an impossible form for a horizontal leaking, anachronic weaving, pictural signs of a medieval work, a common trafic of fakes and relics in medieval time, negative painting is used since the beginning of Paleolithic Era, a lot of "signs" on the shroud are only seen by believers while the others signs are presents in text and others representations in medieval times, the carbon dating seems unaccurate but only by a few (some decades likes shown in Walsh Bryan and Schwalbe Larry's study in 2020) and still medieval, etc.
Oh and it's not even the only shroud which exist. More than 40 Jesus's burial clothes dates from medieval times were found in Europe. You can look at the work of Nicolas Sarzeaud about it.
The Shroud is easily reproducible, in all its properties, with the frottage technique (medieval technology of course). It was reproduced for the first time in 2009 by Luigi Garlaschelli, a chemist at the University of Pavia:
L. Garlaschelli. Life-Size Reproduction of the Shroud of Turin and its Image. J. Imaging Sci. and Technol., 54 (4) 2010, in press
This reproduction replicates all its properties, 100%, including the bas-relief detected with 3D information, exactly like the Turin Shroud. As you can verify, there is no mystery. Please reply to the peer reviewed scientific publication only with other peer reviewed scientific publications. I'm not interested in personal opinions. I consider any comment not supported by scientific documentation as a confirmation of the scientific documentation that I have indicated.
@@JoutenShin you are misappropriating the study you cited! I think you need to read it again... 😅
@@JoutenShin So you couldn't only reproduce on 2009 what was done in medieval times? Shame on you modern scientists. Hahaha... my point is, your comment is a joke! Those medieval people are not that smart. Why would it take you so much study and sweat to reproduce in 2009 what was done about 2000 years ago?
Just sat down and watched this with my mom. Thank you 'tron, your work is loved!
Thank you very much and say hello to your mum from me
Catholic here who has always been very interested in the shroud, you did an excellent job with this. Very well done!
Why do you Catholics do that? Announce to the World that you are Catholics.Is this the same Catholic Church that buggers little kids? And your proud of that?
@@tarhunta2111 hey man, just thought it'd be nice to compliment the man on a job well done on a subject that Catholics take seriously. No need to get nasty.
@@the_major That's just how some non-believers communicate. If they were believers, they'd have a different tongue.
I suggest you leave the catholic church and become non denominational. The bible says Christ is the only mediator between the Father and men, not priests. Mary is not to be prayed to, only Christ. And not allowing priests to pursue marriage is just plain wrong. Not to mention obvious things like the satan telescope that the vatacin uses. I could go on and on. You are in a false end times church
@@Non-dual-mind1you’d be surprised how some believers communicate if you think it’s just non ;)
I've read and seen a number of explanations about the shroud over the years. This is, by a large margin, is the most in depth I've seen. Most documentaries or articles seem to stop at "it's a medieval forgery", this one didn't. Just excellent work and research.
I don't know for his others videos (i just saw one other and he was really accurate in it) but Metatron didn't did a great work on this video cuz there is a huge lack of science in his sources. He mostly took the speech of sindonologists and their non peer-reviewed papers. On the contrary, most of what he says here is refuted by the scientific studies (peer-reviewed, not like the ones of sindonologists) on the shroud.
No blood attested, wrong pollens and dust, anatomicaly wrong body, 3D informations of a bas-relief and not of a body, pigments founds on plenty places on the shroud, "blood" stains are in an impossible form for a horizontal leaking, anachronic weaving, pictural signs of a medieval work, a common trafic of fakes and relics in medieval time, negative painting is used since the beginning of Paleolithic Era, a lot of "signs" on the shroud are only seen by believers while the others signs are presents in text and others representations in medieval times, the carbon dating seems unaccurate but only by a few (some decades likes shown in Walsh Bryan and Schwalbe Larry's study in 2020) and still medieval, etc.
Oh and it's not even the only shroud which exist. More than 40 Jesus's burial clothes dates from medieval times were found in Europe. You can look at the work of Nicolas Sarzeaud about it.
@@revedargent3467 If you are morbidly stupid enough to believe the Shroud is a fake, then you must explain how whoever fabricated it must have:
1. Known the precise methods of crucifixion in the first century.
2. Be proficient enough in over 100 scientific disciplines and also collectively outweigh the intelligence of the people who performed hundreds and hundreds of tests on the Shroud and who are not finding any indications of a forgery.
3. Possessed the medical knowledge of a modern expert surgeon.
4. Utilized an art process unknown to any great master, never duplicated before or since.
5. Be able to foresee and approximate principles of photographic negativity that would not be discovered for centuries.
6. Imported a piece of old cloth of Middle Eastern manufacture.
7. Used a coloring agent which would be unaffected by intense heat.
8. Be able to incorporate in his work details (that have only recently been discovered), that the human eye cannot see and that are visible only with the most advanced computer-scanning devices.
9. Be able to reproduce flawlessly, on a nearly flat linen surface, in a single color, undistorted 3-D characteristics of a human body in a 'negative format' on the tops of the threads, while conversely showing the 'blood' as positive and soaking all the way through.
10. Get somewhere the blood of a tortured man and apply it before creating the image.
11. Get limestone from Jerusalem, and pollen particles from the middle east, in special from plants with thorns, that flourish only between March and April.
@@revedargent3467 do you mind linking to peer review papers for each of your claims so I can do further research. Some of your claims seem novel to me.
@@revedargent3467You are the most chronicaly online atheist I have seen yet
@@jonathandavid3480 sources and detailled explanations :
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.
Going through your back catalogue of videos. Respect your defence of history and dropping a big Thankyou and sending love and prayers for your mum
There should be a "quality content" button on UA-cam.
Great video, I'm not religious, but fairly interested in such topics, and it was a real pleasure to watch the whole video.
Same here ! I've watched loads of his videos and he is certainly multi talented ❤️ 👌
Agree. There really should be a ranking along those lines to compete with the simple-minded "popularity" measure (which only records the attention of the simple-minded, but I'm just sayin').
As a student of history, I have an MA in American history, and a Christian, I have tried to look at the Shroud in both aspects. You have done a fantastic job summing up all the history and scientific analysis without imposing your own opinion. Masterly done, which is what I have come to expect from this channel. The fact that you are not over a million subscribers is a crime.
unfortunately, he didn't use scientific sources to this video, only sindonologist's work. That's why there are so many errors and he's basically mostly repeating their speech.
I'm not a Christian I'm a Believer in Jesus. Sounds crazy BUT when most people say they believe in Jesus they mean they believe in Christianity which is a system of worship. As flawed as 🧬 evolution. Christianity believes in keeping the old covenant and the New covenant at the same time. That would in fact make them judaizers like those in Jerusalem whose leader was James who tried to put pressure on Peter to separate the Jewish Believers from the Christian Believers in Jesus. Acts-21.
Overall Christianity does not teach Grace by faith. If the blood of Christ cleanses us from all unrighteousness then why do we need a laundry list of dos & don'ts with threat of punishment? If someone keeping the law of Moses stops them from stealing my car I should be happy but I don't need such a law. I'm not building a golden calf to worship.
And I don't have a desire to taking something from someone that isn't mine and I don't have a desire to kill people. As scripture states in the books of Timothy the law is NOT for the righteous. Also that is why a non-religious person had more faith then all of Israel. Truth and religion are like oil and water. very little doubt in my mind that the shroud is authentic even though I don't need physical evidence . You got to wonder why the word bible isn't in the Bible. The prophets and apostles talk to the scriptures could be trusted they never said they would be one book. I love the creation scientists and we can learn a lot from them but proving evolution wrong is never going to prove the Bible is the word of God. Both systems are narrow-minded and promote group thinking. I've never lost a debate against a Christian because they are listening to men not reading scripture guided by God's spirit that Jesus left us to lead us into all truth.
Blessings. And you can reach a lot more intelligent people with the truth than blind Faith religious dogma. Blessings
@@duketinntinn8498 this is true for me, im christian (Evangelic Lutheran) but I want know the truth in all and having a common sense 😅
I hardly believe in any superinnatural.
So yeah I believe that Jesus has been a real person and that Shroud might be where He was wrapped into.
@@Kenruli I'm of Norwegian heritage and a distant relative to Eliot Ness.
Like Elliot I can't be bought. I had a radio program teaching the organic and holistic truth about the New Testament. With my knowledge I could have a very lucrative ministry if I compromised the truth, but I won't. The truth about the scriptures is you can have eternal life. That's the uncompromising message. Jesus is certainly not a stalker. With all the terrible things that this world did to him he still was willing to forgive people because they truly did not understand what they were doing. They were misled by the leaders of their day just like people are misled today. I thank God everyday I WAS NOT raised in a Christian home. I didn't have all those falsehoods put in my head at an early age. in fact my father taught me to be objective. I debated a man that knew the New Testament by heart and had a higher IQ than Einstein. After I showed him how wrong he was he asked me to join his church. He taught like many people that Jesus came as a Jewish Messiah. I pointed out when Jesus started his commission John stated "behold the Lamb who takes away the sins of the World". Day One! He came to disciple the people that already knew God and we're under the Old Covenant. They in turn were to take the message to the whole world, and did After his death by crucifixion. Jesus said I have sheep you know nothing about. Jesus was in no way saying that if you do works to help others from a loving ❤️ it was nothing. He was saying doing it for brownie points will get you nowhere. God knows your heart. The Good Samaritan is an excellent example. In closing my friend, Jesus is not a Stalker.💥❤️👏
*Masterfully (is the word you were looking for). 🤔 (hmm, I think I'd better check myself...)
Well now... because of you I've learned a new word I didn't know existed before. I am well acquainted with "masterful," but I'd never heard of the seeming synonym "masterly."
Thank you.
Just came across this video as my childhood interest in the Shroud and the Voynich Manuscript have been rekindled.
I really enjoyed both the structure and delivery of this presentation. Balanced. Informative. Thorough.
The details demonstrate your commitment to research and there were numerous nuggets of which I had no idea!
Kudos.
Subscribing as I am keenly interested in viewing more of your work.
I don't know for his others videos (i just saw one other and he was really accurate in it) but Metatron didn't did a great work on this video cuz there is a huge lack of science in his sources. He mostly took the speech of sindonologists and their non peer-reviewed papers. On the contrary, most of what he says here is refuted by the scientific studies (peer-reviewed, not like the ones of sindonologists) on the shroud.
No blood attested, wrong pollens and dust, anatomicaly wrong body, 3D informations of a bas-relief and not of a body, pigments founds on plenty places on the shroud, "blood" stains are in an impossible form for a horizontal leaking, anachronic weaving, pictural signs of a medieval work, a common trafic of fakes and relics in medieval time, negative painting is used since the beginning of Paleolithic Era, a lot of "signs" on the shroud are only seen by believers while the others signs are presents in text and others representations in medieval times, the carbon dating seems unaccurate but only by a few (some decades likes shown in Walsh Bryan and Schwalbe Larry's study in 2020) and still medieval, etc.
Oh and it's not even the only shroud which exist. More than 40 Jesus's burial clothes dates from medieval times were found in Europe. You can look at the work of Nicolas Sarzeaud about it.
@@revedargent3467 If you really are an atheist stupid enough to believe the Shroud is a fake, then you must explain how whoever fabricated it must have:
1. Known the precise methods of crucifixion in the first century.
2. Be proficient enough in over 100 scientific disciplines and also collectively outweigh the intelligence of the people who performed hundreds and hundreds of tests on the Shroud and who are not finding any indications of a forgery.
3. Possessed the medical knowledge of a modern expert surgeon.
4. Utilized an art process unknown to any great master, never duplicated before or since.
5. Be able to foresee and approximate principles of photographic negativity that would not be discovered for centuries.
6. Imported a piece of old cloth of Middle Eastern manufacture.
7. Used a coloring agent which would be unaffected by intense heat.
8. Be able to incorporate in his work details (that have only recently been discovered), that the human eye cannot see and that are visible only with the most advanced computer-scanning devices.
9. Be able to reproduce flawlessly, on a nearly flat linen surface, in a single color, undistorted 3-D characteristics of a human body in a 'negative format' on the tops of the threads, while conversely showing the 'blood' as positive and soaking all the way through.
10. Get somewhere the blood of a tortured man and apply it before creating the image.
11. Get limestone from Jerusalem, and pollen particles from the middle east, in special from plants with thorns, that flourish only between March and April.
Every video I have watched of yours in three days have blown my mind. I appreciate the awesome work you and your team do to provide this information. My mind is officially blown. 🤯
I don't know for his others videos (i just saw one other and he was really accurate in it) but Metatron didn't did a great work on this video cuz there is a huge lack of science in his sources. He mostly took the speech of sindonologists and their non peer-reviewed papers. On the contrary, most of what he says here is refuted by the scientific studies (peer-reviewed, not like the ones of sindonologists) on the shroud.
No blood attested, wrong pollens and dust, anatomicaly wrong body, 3D informations of a bas-relief instead of a body, pigments founds on plenty places on the shroud, "blood" stains are in an impossible form for a horizontal leaking, anachronic weaving, pictural signs of a medieval work, a common trafic of fakes and relics in medieval time, negative painting is used since the beginning of Paleolithic Era, a lot of "signs" on the shroud are only seen by believers while the others signs are presents in text and others representations in medieval times, the carbon dating seems unaccurate but only by a few (some decades likes shown in Walsh Bryan and Schwalbe Larry's study in 2020) and still medieval, etc.
Oh and it's not even the only shroud which exist. More than 40 Jesus's burial clothes dates from medieval times were found in Europe. You can look at the work of Nicolas Sarzeaud about it.
@@revedargent3467 If you really are an atheist stupid enough to believe the Shroud is a fake, then you must explain how whoever fabricated it must have:
1. Known the precise methods of crucifixion in the first century.
2. Be proficient enough in over 100 scientific disciplines and also collectively outweigh the intelligence of the people who performed hundreds and hundreds of tests on the Shroud and who are not finding any indications of a forgery.
3. Possessed the medical knowledge of a modern expert surgeon.
4. Utilized an art process unknown to any great master, never duplicated before or since.
5. Be able to foresee and approximate principles of photographic negativity that would not be discovered for centuries.
6. Imported a piece of old cloth of Middle Eastern manufacture.
7. Used a coloring agent which would be unaffected by intense heat.
8. Be able to incorporate in his work details (that have only recently been discovered), that the human eye cannot see and that are visible only with the most advanced computer-scanning devices.
9. Be able to reproduce flawlessly, on a nearly flat linen surface, in a single color, undistorted 3-D characteristics of a human body in a 'negative format' on the tops of the threads, while conversely showing the 'blood' as positive and soaking all the way through.
10. Get somewhere the blood of a tortured man and apply it before creating the image.
11. Get limestone from Jerusalem, and pollen particles from the middle east, in special from plants with thorns, that flourish only between March and April.
This was great. I've never really looked into the shroud, so I wasn't aware of all the details put into it, real or fake. Truly amazing.
I agree. Tho one thing i understand is that when i checked the carbon dating... they have had issues in the past with it. One example is mamoth testing had 2 completely different dates by 10k years on the front and the rear half of the same mammoth. So im not exactly fond of carbon dating.
@@semperfi-1918 It's incredibly useful, but just like DNA, photographs, or anything else, it only shows what what ask it. This being, when did this thing that you are testing die? The question of what you are testing is another matter entirely, and then how to interpret it.
@@semperfi-1918 There was also a snail that showed to be 3500 years old but was still alive. Turns out it was living in a cave with little air circulation etc.
@@gordonlawrence1448 "There was also a snail that showed to be 3500 years old but was still alive."
Yeah, when you misuse technology for something that it is explicitly not suitable for then you get bad results - who'd have known.
It is neither, it is a painting
I've been fascinated by the shroud since I was a boy in the 70's, and have waffled in my opinions of it over the years, but I found this a good and honest summary. I can't add much, but I will tell you I was a young nurse in 1995 given the task of cleaning and prepping a man's body. He had died in the ICU and it was to be prepped for the morgue. They had (I assume still have) kits for this. In the kit was a plastic shroud and three plastic strips for tying the feet, wrists and jaw (to keep it closed) prior to wrapping in the shroud. Then a sheet went over that and it was wheeled to the morgue. So there could be both strips of cloth as well as a shroud involved in the burial of this man in antiquity. I'm sure it was not a new procedure as it was functional and simple.
- [ ] I am ashamed that the current leadership of the Church does not make it clear the shroud is a fake. They hide behind the obscurity of terms like “icon”
* The shroud is also contrary to the description in the Gospel. Look it up.
“Then Simon Peter came, following him, and went into the tomb. He saw the linen wrappings lying there, and the cloth that had been on Jesus’ head, not lying with the linen wrappings but rolled up in a place by itself.”
* We have no reliable documentation of the Shroud of Turin’s existence until the fourteenth century.
* The forger who made the Shroud of Turin confessed and the earliest definitive mention of the shroud in any historical source is a record of his confession.
* The Shroud of Turin doesn’t match the kinds of funerary wrappings used in Judaea in the time of Jesus or the description of Jesus’s own funerary wrappings given in the Gospel of John.
* The linen of the Shroud of Turin has been securely dated using radiocarbon dating to between c. 1260 and c. 1390 AD-well over a millennium after Jesus’s death.
* The figure on the Shroud of Turin does not have anatomically correct proportions and much more closely resembles figures in fourteenth-century Gothic art than a real human being.
* The bloodstains on the Shroud of Turin are not consistent with how blood actually flows naturally and they instead appear to have been painted on.
* The fabric of the Shroud of Turin is made with a kind of weave that is known to have been commonly used during the Late Middle Ages, but does not seem to have been used for burial shrouds in Judaea in the first century AD.
Sounds like an older method with some newer materials.
Today, the body is shoved into a giant, well made plastic bag.
From there the undertakers drain the blood and replace it with formaldehyde. Then a pretty box and some makeup and they are ready for the funeral.
It's obvious the body is empty when someone dies. I have no particular emotion about it then.
The emotions of the family affect me, but the deceased is simply no longer present.
I'm sure the people who saw Jesus die knew this too.
Talking to Him later must have been quite emotional.
Apparently, in Jesus’s time the wrapping would consist of narrow, bandage wrapped strips of cloth rather than one big piece
@@gloriamontgomery6900 Source? because I read different accounts. And I also worked in a hospital, and yes, what ShinyPartsUp describes is exactly what we did with deceased patients. For aesthetic as well as practical reasons. You don´t want the family to visit a body with open eyes and gaping mouth, and you don´t want an arm of the body slip off and hang from the side of the shelf in the fridge, and then stiffen. believe me, that is a mightily unpleasant sutiation to get this body out of the fridge again without completely maiming it. Sorry for being so graphic, but yes, three strips of cloth and a bedsheet solve all of your issues.
@@gloriamontgomery6900 I too would like to know where you got that information, because studying classic writings is my favorite pass time. So much so I have full access to the Vatican archives. I have yet to discover anywhere, whether in ancient Latin, ancient Greek, ancient Hebrew, sanskrit, Aramaic or cuneiform anywhere where it states they are wrapped in narrow bandages rather than a full sheet and tied at the wrists, head and feet. We still wrap bodies this way today until the mortician glues and sews the eyes and mouth shut.
This has been fascinating! Thank you for the work.
I don't know for his others videos (i just saw one other and he was really accurate in it) but unfortunately Metatron didn't did a great work on this video cuz there is a huge lack of science in his sources. He mostly took the speech of sindonologists and their non peer-reviewed papers. On the contrary, most of what he says here is refuted by the scientific studies (peer-reviewed, not like the ones of sindonologists) on the shroud.
No blood attested, wrong pollens and dust, anatomicaly wrong body, 3D informations of a bas-relief and not of a body, pigments founds on plenty places on the shroud, "blood" stains are in an impossible form for a horizontal leaking, anachronic weaving, pictural signs of a medieval work, a common trafic of fakes and relics in medieval time, negative painting is used since the beginning of Paleolithic Era, a lot of "signs" on the shroud are only seen by believers while the others signs are presents in text and others representations in medieval times, the carbon dating seems unaccurate but only by a few (some decades likes shown in Walsh Bryan and Schwalbe Larry's study in 2020) and still medieval, etc.
Oh and it's not even the only shroud which exist. More than 40 Jesus's burial clothes dates from medieval times were found in Europe. You can look at the work of Nicolas Sarzeaud about it.
This video is the most professional and well done videos that I have ever seen... Absolutely great job! Liked and subbed.
Thank you and welcome
Dude, this was amazing. Perhaps this is a bit off-topic but I really appreciate the respect you have for the ancients; it's contagious. They weren't all simple "camel herders"; sometimes, even worthy of admiration and study - by all of us - for their ingenuity. Heck, even the "camel herders" had their qualities.
ua-cam.com/video/KvghlgftwnE/v-deo.html
From 26:44 minute
@@Dorfapoligetik Now _that_ is interesting. Thank you, my friend.
Humans are always worthy of study and praise, no matter the era.
Many of us today would likely totally fail at attempting to heard camels. We might consider them a low skilled worker, but as soon as a pandemic hits, they become a key worker.
I just noticed Zhdun on your profile picture. Lol. I love Zhdun.
This is utterly fascinating. I didn't really know about the shroud research or that there were so many fascinating facts to know. I'm a Protestant Christian, so I don't have quite the same perspective as a secularist or a Catholic.
It's clear that you've done a great deal of research, and your presentation is meticulous, clear, and balanced, as far as I can tell. I can't tell you how much I appreciate the sobriety and rigor of your approach to the subject. You had my attention from start to finish.
Thank you, I appreciate your words
@@metatronyt thank you i love your channel, may God bless you Rafaello and keep strong in your christian faith and are you catholic protestant or orthodox i respect all of them but i m Catholic
I’m born again. Jesus is my savior for me and anyone that will believe. . Thankyou Jesus for going thru this to bring you’re flock home. We know your voice❤️⚔️
@@watchwomanofthedragon8376 haha... guess it takes all sorts eh !
@@Baraodojaguary I hope you can come back home to the Church!
I really like your videos. You analyze things accurately and without prejudice or an agenda! Thank you!
I don't know for his others videos (i just saw one other and he was really accurate in it) but Metatron didn't did a great work on this video cuz there is a huge lack of science in his sources. He mostly took the speech of sindonologists and their non peer-reviewed papers. On the contrary, most of what he says here is refuted by the scientific studies (peer-reviewed, not like the ones of sindonologists) on the shroud.
No blood attested, wrong pollens and dust, anatomicaly wrong body, 3D informations of a bas-relief instead of a body, pigments founds on plenty places on the shroud, "blood" stains are in an impossible form for a horizontal leaking, anachronic weaving, pictural signs of a medieval work, a common trafic of fakes and relics in medieval time, negative painting is used since the beginning of Paleolithic Era, a lot of "signs" on the shroud are only seen by believers while the others signs are presents in text and others representations in medieval times, the carbon dating seems unaccurate but only by a few (some decades likes shown in Walsh Bryan and Schwalbe Larry's study in 2020) and still medieval, etc.
Oh and it's not even the only shroud which exist. More than 40 Jesus's burial clothes dates from medieval times were found in Europe. You can look at the work of Nicolas Sarzeaud about it.
Absolutely love all your vids, plz don't stop. Your unbiased and thoroughly researched topics are a true breath of fresh air from religion to history. Always a treat.
thank you
I don't know for his others videos (i just saw one other and he was really accurate in it) but Metatron didn't did a great work on this video cuz there is a huge lack of science in his sources. He mostly took the speech of sindonologists and their non peer-reviewed papers. On the contrary, most of what he says here is refuted by the scientific studies (peer-reviewed, not like the ones of sindonologists) on the shroud.
No blood attested, wrong pollens and dust, anatomicaly wrong body, 3D informations of a bas-relief and not of a body, pigments founds on plenty places on the shroud, "blood" stains are in an impossible form for a horizontal leaking, anachronic weaving, pictural signs of a medieval work, a common trafic of fakes and relics in medieval time, negative painting is used since the beginning of Paleolithic Era, a lot of "signs" on the shroud are only seen by believers while the others signs are presents in text and others representations in medieval times, the carbon dating seems unaccurate but only by a few (some decades likes shown in Walsh Bryan and Schwalbe Larry's study in 2020) and still medieval, etc.
Oh and it's not even the only shroud which exist. More than 40 Jesus's burial clothes dates from medieval times were found in Europe.
I'm only 17 minutes in and I just want to pause early to say thank you. As a person that regularly goes down random study binges of topics that interest me, I have a good idea of the amount of time it had to have taken to find all this intricate minutia. I appreciate you!
After finishing the video, while it would be pretty cool if it was real, odds are not good. I had seen a couple documentaries about the shroud previously, but they didn't go over half the stuff you did. It was cool hearing you try and follow a timeline of the shroud, and seeing it was theoretically possible for the shorud to end up where it did. However, it's pretty unlikely that all the stars aligned in such a way that The Shroud of Turin, was Jesus' death shroud. I'd say 94% it's a medieval forgery, 5% it's the shroud of another crucified man from Roman Empire period, 1% it's the real deal.
@@skrounst Sounds to me like you need to do a _lot_ more Shroud studying! The odds are _much_ better for it to be the burial shroud of Jesus of Nazareth than for it to be a fake. There is an image of a man on the Holy Shroud. That man has been horribly beaten, savagely scourged, capped with a crown of thorns, and then crucified until dead. There is _no_ pigment, no carrier, no brush strokes, no clumping of material between the fibers or threads, no cracking due to centuries of folding or rolling the Shroud, and no stiffening of the cloth. This means that the image could not be due to paint, dye, or stain. · There is no capillarity (soaking up of a liquid) of the discoloration in the fibers or threads, so the image could not be due to application of a liquid such as an acid or a chemical in a liquid state. · The image is not luminescent under ultra-violet light. This means that the image could not be due to a scorch from contact of a hot object with the cloth. · The image is only visible in front lighting. It is not visible in back lighting. From this, the STURP team concluded that the image does not result from any substance placed on the cloth, which means that the image could not be a rubbing, a dusting, or a print. And _only_ the original cloth will give a 3-D image when run through a VP8 Image analyzer.
So now the question is, how in the _world_ can you think that it's a fake?
@@skrounst I would say from all the points bought up by this video I would conclude:
Real: 90%
Forgery: 9%
Another man: 1%
Just think of the effort and technology needed to create a forgery that leaves an imprint only on the top two layers of the should...we are talking microns here....forgeries in those times would of been crude and simple consisting mainly of dyes and paints.
The exactly death of Jesus was written in detail and it matches extremely closely with what we see in the Shroud....again a forgery of this level of sophistication would be extremely difficult in the 14 Century.
@@skrounst : ''5% it's the shroud of another crucified man from Roman Empire period" Yes but with all the EXACT, same, wounds as the biblical account gives?! What would be the odds of that?!
If it is the burial shroud of Christ, then there is no reason for the stars to align.
As a catholic Christian, I gave some few times a lecture about it in a Parish near the place I used to live. Your video is excelent and is very useful for the studies of the Scriptures, the Church and the history in general. Thanks a lot!
Confirms your insane bias?
More like your immediate knee jerk reaction confirms your own “insane bias”
@@86Corvus I thougth free speech was an universal value. Say "You're wrong due to this and that", that is to share wisdom. Say "You're just a blind brainless individual" without knowing More than the name of somebody, its useful for knowing just one thing: the character of whom says that.
Good for you, what did you lecture about, Haribo Tangtastic's
Catholicism is a bunch of man made rules added to Christianity, which is what Jesus said the Pharisees and Sadducee did by adding things to the Law
Brilliant work, considered argument, and thought-provoking. I'll admit, I started watching with a preconceived notion, but this gave me much food for thought. Thank you.😊
I don't know for his others videos (i just saw one other and he was really accurate in it) but Metatron didn't did a great work on this video cuz there is a huge lack of science in his sources. He mostly took the speech of sindonologists and their non peer-reviewed papers. On the contrary, most of what he says here is refuted by the scientific studies (peer-reviewed, not like the ones of sindonologists) on the shroud.
No blood attested, wrong pollens and dust, anatomicaly wrong body, 3D informations of a bas-relief and not of a body, pigments founds on plenty places on the shroud, "blood" stains are in an impossible form for a horizontal leaking, anachronic weaving, pictural signs of a medieval work, a common trafic of fakes and relics in medieval time, negative painting is used since the beginning of Paleolithic Era, a lot of "signs" on the shroud are only seen by believers while the others signs are presents in text and others representations in medieval times, the carbon dating seems unaccurate but only by a few (some decades likes shown in Walsh Bryan and Schwalbe Larry's study in 2020) and still medieval, etc.
Oh and it's not even the only shroud which exist. More than 40 Jesus's burial clothes dates from medieval times were found in Europe. You can look at the work of Nicolas Sarzeaud about it.
@@revedargent3467 "Science" is sold to the highest bidder!! It's really pathetic how "scientists" find exactly what they're paid to find.. don't you think??
Any replica of this shroud is guaranteed fake, nobody knows how the image was created.
The carbon dating was WRONG.. they took a sample from part of the shroud that had been "repaired", not the original fabric... Strange how "Science" made that mistake.
This was a very excellent detailed video. Thank you. ♥
My pleasure
Wow, was I wrong! I fully expected another one-sided commentary, but I was truly pleasantly surprised!
This has been one of the most objective & unbiased presentations on... well, ANY controversial topic I've come across on the internet!
You are to be commended (awarded even!) for such a mature, courageous attempt at a fair & balanced proffering, likely knowing that you would be pilloried and maybe even lose a few subscribers! Well, please accept my new subscription as a vote on the positive side!
I have to give the Metatron credit. He tries to present controversial topics with, as he puts it, "Academic Honesty." Even though, sometimes you can tell he wants one side to be correct, he doesn't hold back on showing all the evidence he can. Check out his video on "The Exodus," if you get the chance.
@@keithdean9149 I can't find Metatron's video on the Exodus. Do you have a link?
Sponsored by the Catholic Church.
@@Bildad1976 Lol the exodus 100000% did not happen. I'll save you the time. There is not a single shred of evidence. The people who recorded the story into the bible even knew how ridiculous it was to have a group of millions of jews leaving Egypt which is why they wrote in Moses executing 1/3 of them for worshipping a cow, and then they proceed to whittle down the numbers throughout judges to explain why there wasn't millions of jews in Jerusalem when the book was written.
Where we DO find thousands of pieces of evidence for Jewish habitation is in Canaan because they have common ancestry with them. We also find their polytheist Gods there including proto-depictions of YHWH and his wife Asherah.
That all said, I expect that you didnt even get through the comment and if you did, no amount of evidence would convince you that one of the most hilariously wrong stories in the bible isn't real. Your conspiratorial prejudice against this video going into it is my evidence that this is how you'll react.....That plus the persecution complex.
Facts are one sided, belief is not! And the fact is and always has been that the shroud of Turin is FAKE! No other sides need to be taken!
This is the highest quality treatment of the Shroud I have ever seen. I look to you Metatron for clearly thought out explorations of history, and historical mysteries. I have not made up my mind, but in my heart, I want it to be an image of my Lord.
Do you remember the passage from scripture when the Pharisees said to Jesus "Teacher we need to
see a sign from you".
Jesus seemed agitated then said "This wicked generation asked for a sign but no sign will be given except the sign of Jonah.
Three times it is mentioned in the gospel accounts.
I'll get straight to the point. The Shroud of Turin is the sign of Jonah. But don't take my word for it. Read the passage out loud in prayer and ask the Lord Jesus yourself. I insist .
That will get his attention. And you will get a response. You might see a law of physics broken before your eyes. But something's going to happen that's not normal. It will get your attention. Something having to do with the number 3. See the number 3 blood stain on the forehead of Jesus. That is.a ID mark
Read the passage outloud in prayer and ask the Lord Jesus is the Shroud of Turin the sign of Jonah?
Watch what happens. It could be quick or but might be slow. You will get a response. Of course ask with reverence and respect. Also with a sense of seriousness and urgency. That will get a response for sure.
Your lord opposed all images, especially for religious or devotional use, as was demanded by his religion which he obeyed down to the tiniest dot, and christian art favoured symbolic art for illustration purposes only (not cult) and discouraged over-realism. One of the reasons is that visual evidence through any imaging technique is the easiest of all to falsify. Photoshoppers have always centuries of advance over the populace. Even if the imprint of Jesus on the shroud were real, Jesus himself, when resuscitated, would have opposed looking at the image as at an important evidence, though he would not have opposed the use of the tissue itself as a relic. I think that the imprint is real but is that of a saintly Christian man having died in the Crusades. Since his martyr was real the relic has a real power. Why? Because the man that died as a martyr and left an imprint is very tall (more than 6ft) and germanic in features, while the Gospel text speaks of Jesus as of a much more smallish person of semitic features.
True ! This review was very thorough ! Maybe do updates as more info is found.
It's great to see that a person of faith is willing to look honestly at this. While it's not central to Christian belief it shows great courage to look at evidence that may conflict with your world view.
Even if it’s the face of Jesus, it’s not the face of your lord. Sorry
Enjoyed this in its entirety for a second time. Thank you.
Absolutely wonderful, brilliant video!
I usually don't comment and seldom give likes to videos, but you sir have done a tremendous job. Thank you!
Thank you Adam
I'd just like to say how much I appreciate the work you have put into this. I understand how much time it would have taken to conduct all the research here, collate it, and then present it in an edited video.
@TOFEK GAMER I didn't lose Hastings, it is still where I left it...
I also appreciate the depth of knowledge shown, and the way this video was presented. Be it real or fake, The Shroud of Turin has one thing going for it. It looks to be the oldest photograph on earth, being created (at least) some 600 years before Nicephore Niepce's first photograph in 1825. Ironically, it was of Pope Pius VI, and utilized a fixing substance called "Bitumen of Judea." This was done without a camera, and it has become lost. His earliest surviving photograph of a view from his studio window used a camera, and came a year or two later.
@@charlesyoung7436
Well if it's fake, it would depend on how it's faked.
It might have been a hand-created photorealistic drawing rather than something photographic in style.
Extremely interesting and well researched video!
I don't know for his others videos (i just saw one other and he was really accurate in it) but Metatron didn't did a great work on this video cuz there is a huge lack of science in his sources. He mostly took the speech of sindonologists and their non peer-reviewed papers. On the contrary, most of what he says here is refuted by the scientific studies (peer-reviewed, not like the ones of sindonologists) on the shroud.
No blood attested, wrong pollens and dust, anatomicaly wrong body, 3D informations of a bas-relief and not of a body, pigments founds on plenty places on the shroud, "blood" stains are in an impossible form for a horizontal leaking, anachronic weaving, pictural signs of a medieval work, a common trafic of fakes and relics in medieval time, negative painting is used since the beginning of Paleolithic Era, a lot of "signs" on the shroud are only seen by believers while the others signs are presents in text and others representations in medieval times, the carbon dating seems unaccurate but only by a few (some decades likes shown in Walsh Bryan and Schwalbe Larry's study in 2020) and still medieval, etc.
Oh and it's not even the only shroud which exist. More than 40 Jesus's burial clothes dates from medieval times were found in Europe. You can look at the work of Nicolas Sarzeaud about it.
Thank you for this video. The bit about the 'strips of cloth' vs 'a cloth' was very informative!
I have watched a plethora of videos on the Shroud of Turin. Your analysis is magnificent; I didn’t want it to end! There’s an older black and white video of a lecture where the gentleman talks about two individuals flogging the man. Just as you mentioned. One taller than the other and possibly more aggressive with his attacks. I also hope that another round of scientific, objective and comprehensively inclusive testing takes place. This is a precious artifact. However, samples from various areas of the cloth are mandatory to achieve a higher degree of accuracy. I believe knowledgeable excisions are possible without disrespecting or denigrating the Shroud’s integrity. In my heart, I believe this is the burial cloth of Jesus. Though I am open to reviewing any reputable sources bringing new evidence to the forefront; whether it proves or disproves the Shroud of Turin’s authenticity. I hope you will keep us posted. Your objectivity is greatly appreciated. Thank you for keeping this video ad-free!❤
I don't know for his others videos (i just saw one other and he was really accurate in it) but Metatron didn't did a great work on this video cuz there is a huge lack of science in his sources. He mostly took the speech of sindonologists and their non peer-reviewed papers. On the contrary, most of what he says here is refuted by the scientific studies (peer-reviewed, not like the ones of sindonologists) on the shroud.
No blood attested, wrong pollens and dust, anatomicaly wrong body, 3D informations of a bas-relief and not of a body, pigments founds on plenty places on the shroud, "blood" stains are in an impossible form for a horizontal leaking, anachronic weaving, pictural signs of a medieval work, a common trafic of fakes and relics in medieval time, negative painting is used since the beginning of Paleolithic Era, a lot of "signs" on the shroud are only seen by believers while the others signs are presents in text and others representations in medieval times, the carbon dating seems unaccurate but only by a few (some decades likes shown in Walsh Bryan and Schwalbe Larry's study in 2020) and still medieval, etc.
Oh and it's not even the only shroud which exist. More than 40 Jesus's burial clothes dates from medieval times were found in Europe. You can look at the work of the historian Nicolas Sarzeaud about it.
@@revedargent3467why do write “blood” in the quotation marks? Are there any doubts that it is blood?
@@retrocomputing For blood: In 1973, a medical institute analyzed fragments from "blood stains" on laundry and had to detect the presence of blood. UV tests are negative, as are benzidin and microspectrophotometry. In 1978, the STURP researchers (Heller and Adler: accustomed to publications with abusive conclusions) brought to light porphyrin (which is found in hemoglobin), albumin and bilirubin on the tissue (which the we find in the blood) and therefore they conclude (because of their belief or their lack of expertise in this field) that it is blood but no analysis is carried out to prove that the molecules come from blood . Problem: these molecules are also present in the pigments used in painting and in particular red ferrous ochre, the composition of which was found in fragments taken from different places in the shroud. We also find cinnabar and these two pigments are very present in the Middle Ages. The yellow tint to the body is due to a bone glue soak that has yellowed over time. In 1981, Heller and Adler reiterated with an article that had the same flaws as the 1978 study, in addition to repeating a whole bunch of usual and unfounded stereotypes (on the negative, dimensions, etc.) on the shroud. In 2017, Giulio Fanti found creatinine and ferrihydrite on the shroud and therefore concluded that blood was present. Same problem as previous studies! For creatinine and ferrihydrite: ferrihydrite is also present in certain pigments and creatinine can easily be explained by the presence of another component on the shroud: collagen, which is an essential element of bone glue and found in certain techniques such as tempera painting, which achieves similar results to the study. In other words, there too it is not sufficient to certify that it is blood. Especially since the study is far from reliable. The evidence presented by the authors does not in any way support their conclusion ("the man enveloped in the ST suffered a strong polytrauma"), which is based instead on the simple overinterpretation of data from a sample whose history is unknown and a chain of dubious hypotheses not even making it possible to validate with certainty the presence of these molecules. This conclusion is contradicted by the publication of Kelly P Kearse in 2020, which also shows the presence of molecules present in the blood on the shroud. Problem: this study is based on several refuted works and avoids the analyzes conducted (such as UV tests, benzidin and microspectrophotometry) which contradict the presence of blood. This study also probably did not pass peer review because it was only published in 13 days, whereas it takes an average of 3 months for a serious study/review.
In 2005, geneticist Gérard Lucotte claimed to have found DNA from a man of Middle Eastern origin and blood type AB. Problems: his work is not published in a scientific journal but in a Christian publishing house and is therefore not subject to any peer review. Moreover, the sample used is of unknown origin (we don't know how he got it) and therefore not reliable. We can also add that Lucotte works alone, has no scientific recognition and that even the other works of his career are often more than controversial, completely biased or without peer review, which does not even allow us to qualify him as a person. qualified for this exercise.
@@revedargent3467I literally just sat here for three hours checking all his sources and… they are all peer reviewed and the scienctific sources are all very thorough. It’s clear that YOU did not review his sources, so are you just trying to say there isn’t enough evidence for YOU to believe it or do you just want to argue about Christianity being a bad religion?
@@shadowdrakon9913 For blood: In 1973, a medical institute analyzed fragments from “blood stains” on laundry and had to detect the presence of blood. UV tests are negative, as are benzidine and microspectrophotometry. In 1978, STURP researchers (Heller and Adler: accustomed to publications with abusive conclusions) highlighted porphyrin (which is found in hemoglobin), albumin and bilirubin on the tissue (which the found in the blood) and therefore they conclude (due to their belief or their lack of expertise in this area) that it is blood but no analysis is carried out to prove that the molecules do indeed come from blood . Problem: these molecules are also present in the pigments used in painting and in particular red iron ocher whose composition was found in fragments taken from different places of the shroud. We also find cinnabar and these two pigments are very present in the Middle Ages. The yellow tint of the body is due to a bone glue soak that has yellowed over time. In 1981, Heller and Adler reiterated with an article which has the same defects as the 1978 study in addition to repeating a whole bunch of usual and unfounded clichés (on the negative, dimensions, etc.) on the shroud. In 2017, Giulio Fanti found creatinine and ferrihydrite on the shroud and therefore concluded that blood was present. Same problem as previous studies! For creatinine and ferrihydrite: ferrihydrite is also present in certain pigments and creatinine can easily be explained by the presence of another component on the shroud: collagen, which is an essential element of bone glue and that we find in certain techniques such as tempera painting, which allows us to obtain results similar to the study. In other words, this too is not enough to certify that it is blood. Especially since the study is far from reliable. The evidence presented by the authors in no way supports their conclusion ("the man wrapped in the ST suffered high polytrauma"), which instead relies on the simple overinterpretation of data from a sample whose history is unknown and a chain of doubtful hypotheses not even allowing the presence of these molecules to be validated with certainty. This conclusion is contradicted by the publication of Kelly P Kearse in 2020, which also shows the presence of molecules present in the blood on the shroud. Problem: this study is based on several refuted works and avoids the analyzes carried out (such as UV tests, benzidine and microspectrophotometry) which refute the presence of blood. This study probably did not pass peer review because it was only published in 13 days, whereas it takes on average 3 months for a serious study/review.
In 2005, geneticist Gérard Lucotte claimed to have found DNA from a man of Middle Eastern origin and blood type AB. Problems: his work is not published in a scientific journal but in a Christian publishing house and is therefore not subject to any peer review. In addition, the sample used is of unknown origin (we do not know how it was obtained) and therefore not reliable. We can also add that Lucotte works alone, has no scientific recognition and that even the other works of his career are often more than controversial, completely biased or without peer review, which does not even allow us to qualify him as a person. competent for this exercise.
But hey, the author could have painted with blood (which remains strangely red) to make his work more authentic so it wouldn't mean much to find it on the linen.
STURP is an offshoot of a pro-shroud Catholic guild. The majority (statistically too many for it not to have been a determining factor in the selection) of those who participated were believers and some were even high-ranking members of the Catholic guild. There was a surprising lack of specialists in the relevant field in this team: no specialists in ancient fabrics or medieval art. STURP also quickly got rid of Walter MacCorne, a doctor in organic chemistry and one who was considered at the time the greatest microscopy expert in the world because his results were not at all in the direction of the authenticity. In short, STURP was simply a big scam which only served to give a "scientific" stamp to sindonologists and from which we only keep work of no great scientific value, full of errors and statements without proof.
In his Last Judgment of the Shroud of Turin, Chicago scientist Walter McCrone details 20 years of research on it. Its conclusions are based on the microscopic examination of 32 samples of fibers and particles taken from different locations on the shroud. He concluded that the image was not obtained from blood but from red ocher and an iron pigment. The artist of the Shroud painted in tempera the areas where the linen was supposed to come into contact with the supposed body so that a negative image resulted (more logical than if he had painted the hollows). A vermilion stain based on mercury sulfide was then used to represent the bloodstains at the nailed areas. He also explains how time, exposures and conservation conditions have caused the image to fade (penetration of the fabric). Sindonologists do speak of later, added painting, or have some other ad hoc hypotheses but which do not undermine the credibility of the pigments discovered. Walter McCorne is also the head of a laboratory specializing in the analysis of works of art and the discovery of forgeries (like himself in addition to being used to blood analyzes), a laboratory whose proponents of authenticity originally hoped that it would support their belief but who backed away when they saw the results, as they already did for the 1988 carbon dating.
Contrary to what Sindonologists claim without proof, the Shroud is reproducible and also has several replicas, for example at the cathedral of Chambéry or the one made by Paul-Henry Blanrue, that of Luigi Garlaschelli, that of Jacques Di Costanzo, that of Randall R. Bresee and Emily A. Craig, that of Joe Nickell and that of Henri Brock, even if the latter two mainly aim to demonstrate the feasibility of obtaining such a task (negative, proportions and penetration of a few microns) using the tempera painting technique and with a bas-relief. Henri Broch's experience is not unique and several other people have successfully carried out similar experiments by obtaining tasks with the same characteristics apart from the shape of course, rather due to the shape of the bottom -relief used. The non-existence of replicas, if that were the case, would in any case mean nothing: many works of art do not have replicas and certain techniques also leave enough room for contingency so that the The result obtained is not predictable and therefore difficult or even impossible to do exactly the same again.
The weaving is completely anachronistic since instead of being in simple stitch (mesh weave) like all the fabrics found from this period, it is a crochet weaving in triple stitch, a type of weaving which requires a tool which did not yet exist at the time of Jesus and which would only be invented centuries later in China: a loom with 4 pedal-operated heddle bars. Literature for the subject:
Vial, Gabriel, 'Shrouded in Mystery', HALI (The International Magazine of Fine Carpets and Textiles), Issue 49, 1990. It shows that nothing like it (structure, material or composition) is known in Europe before the 16th century . He concludes that it has an ancient origin but only because he starts from the hypothesis that the 4-bar loom would have arrived much earlier in Palestine than in Europe due to its geographical location as a cultural and economic crossroads.
Stoner, Joyce Hill, "Conservation of Easel Paintings", Routledge, 2012. On the 4-bar pedal-heddle loom.
Øye, Ingvild, ‘When did weaving become a male profession?’, Danish Journal of Archaeology, Vol 5, 2016. For the appearance of this loom in Europe from the 13th century.
Metatron never ceases to amaze me. Whether it's his extensive work and research that goes into each video, or his general humility as a human being. I tell everyone I know about this channel.
I don't know for his others videos (i just saw one other and he was really accurate in it) but Metatron didn't did a great work on this video cuz there is a huge lack of science in his sources. He mostly took the speech of sindonologists and their non peer-reviewed papers. On the contrary, most of what he says here is refuted by the scientific studies (peer-reviewed, not like the ones of sindonologists) on the shroud.
No blood attested, wrong pollens and dust, anatomicaly wrong body, 3D informations of a bas-relief and not of a body, pigments founds on plenty places on the shroud, "blood" stains are in an impossible form for a horizontal leaking, anachronic weaving, pictural signs of a medieval work, a common trafic of fakes and relics in medieval time, negative painting is used since the beginning of Paleolithic Era, a lot of "signs" on the shroud are only seen by believers while the others signs are presents in text and others representations in medieval times, the carbon dating seems unaccurate but only by a few (some decades likes shown in Walsh Bryan and Schwalbe Larry's study in 2020) and still medieval, etc.
Oh and it's not even the only shroud which exist. More than 40 Jesus's burial clothes dates from medieval times were found in Europe. You can look at the work of Nicolas Sarzeaud about it.
Do not pay any attention to anything the God denying lying atheist Rêve D'Argent says. It was *proven* by many dozens of doctors, scientists, archeologists, and other highly trained researchers and their tens of thousands of hours of examination that the Shroud most definitely wrapped the body of a severely beaten, scourged and crucified man that was wearing a crown or cap of thorns before he died. *PROVEN.* Only an imbecile, such as your typical atheist, would be dumb enough to think that this was someone other than our Lord Jesus.
He went to university and was a history major and was a history teacher before making videos.
Metatron is the highest angel, second only to God.
Think you are going a bit far dude.@@clbaird40
Excellent video I just love the unbiased study of the shroud thank you for this I learned a lot👍
I don't know for his others videos (i just saw one other and he was really accurate in it) but Metatron didn't did a great work on this video cuz there is a huge lack of science in his sources. He mostly took the speech of sindonologists and their non peer-reviewed papers. On the contrary, most of what he says here is refuted by the scientific studies (peer-reviewed, not like the ones of sindonologists) on the shroud.
No blood attested, wrong pollens and dust, anatomicaly wrong body, 3D informations of a bas-relief and not of a body, pigments founds on plenty places on the shroud, "blood" stains are in an impossible form for a horizontal leaking, anachronic weaving, pictural signs of a medieval work, a common trafic of fakes and relics in medieval time, negative painting is used since the beginning of Paleolithic Era, a lot of "signs" on the shroud are only seen by believers while the others signs are presents in text and others representations in medieval times, the carbon dating seems unaccurate but only by a few (some decades likes shown in Walsh Bryan and Schwalbe Larry's study in 2020) and still medieval, etc.
Oh and it's not even the only shroud which exist. More than 40 Jesus's burial clothes dates from medieval times were found in Europe. You can look at the work of Nicolas Sarzeaud about it.
Amazing video! Thank you!
I don't know for his others videos (i just saw one other and he was really accurate in it) but Metatron didn't did a great work on this video cuz there is a huge lack of science in his sources. He mostly took the speech of sindonologists and their non peer-reviewed papers. On the contrary, most of what he says here is refuted by the scientific studies (peer-reviewed, not like the ones of sindonologists) on the shroud.
No blood attested, wrong pollens and dust, anatomicaly wrong body, 3D informations of a bas-relief and not of a body, pigments founds on plenty places on the shroud, "blood" stains are in an impossible form for a horizontal leaking, anachronic weaving, pictural signs of a medieval work, a common trafic of fakes and relics in medieval time, negative painting is used since the beginning of Paleolithic Era, a lot of "signs" on the shroud are only seen by believers while the others signs are presents in text and others representations in medieval times, the carbon dating seems unaccurate but only by a few (some decades likes shown in Walsh Bryan and Schwalbe Larry's study in 2020) and still medieval, etc.
Oh and it's not even the only shroud which exist. More than 40 Jesus's burial clothes dates from medieval times were found in Europe. You can look at the work of Nicolas Sarzeaud about it.
Your research is meticulously collected and laid out in a reasonable and logical way. Great video, thank you for your hard work, it's greatly appreciated!
I'm very taken with your work. Your channel is phenomenal. It's so much better than watching a documentary on any of the given subjects, because it is packed full of useful and interesting information without filler. I also enjoy the humor you sprinkle throughout. Do you have help on research and production? Keep it up! I hope you make millions.
A few more interesting things about the dating of the shroud.
1.Cotton fibers were found in the carbon dated corner of the shroud by at least 8 different researchers, Not as a surface contaminant, but woven into the threads, and this cotton wasn't found in the rest of the otherwise linen shroud. multiple lines of evidence show that the samples came from a repaired corner: King Umberto II of Italy, whose family used to own the shroud, says that in 1694 they repaired the shroud's heavily frayed and missing edges.
2.The carbon-14 dated corner is thinner and has lighter weft (vertical) threads than the rest of the shroud.
3.Research Ray Rogers found vanillin (from the breakdown of lignin) in the carbon-14 dated corner of the Shroud, the medieval backing cloth added to the shroud, and other medieval linens, but not in the rest of the shroud, the dead sea scrolls, or other ancient linens.
4. In photographs, three modern textile repair experts have claimed to see differences of the linen between the bottom left corner and the adjacent cloth
I don't know for his others videos (i just saw one other and he was really accurate in it) but Metatron didn't did a great work on this video cuz there is a huge lack of science in his sources. He mostly took the speech of sindonologists and their non peer-reviewed papers. On the contrary, most of what he says here is refuted by the scientific studies (peer-reviewed, not like the ones of sindonologists) on the shroud.
No blood attested, wrong pollens and dust, anatomicaly wrong body, 3D informations of a bas-relief and not of a body, pigments founds on plenty places on the shroud, "blood" stains are in an impossible form for a horizontal leaking, anachronic weaving, pictural signs of a medieval work, a common trafic of fakes and relics in medieval time, negative painting is used since the beginning of Paleolithic Era, a lot of "signs" on the shroud are only seen by believers while the others signs are presents in text and others representations in medieval times, the carbon dating seems unaccurate but only by a few (some decades likes shown in Walsh Bryan and Schwalbe Larry's study in 2020) and still medieval, etc.
Oh and it's not even the only shroud which exist. More than 40 Jesus's burial clothes dates from medieval times were found in Europe. You can look at the work of the historian Nicolas Sarzeaud about it.
So, what you are saying is, that the substance they dated wasn't part of the shroud itself, but part of the repair, making the test of no value. I am not a Catholic, but the shroud is a puzzle just by being there. What Jesus was wrapped in was most likely a standard burial cloth. Videos claim that the Jewish authorities persecuted Jesus BECAUSE he was the Messiah, the Christ. To assess their actions properly, we must put ourselves in their shoes. They were a very insubordinate occupied country, causing trouble with the Romans. Jesus was seen as a threat to their religious and political stability. Jesus was tried in about A.D. 30. 40 years later, in A.D. 70, Titus invaded, and their fears became reality. The Romans saw the invasion as so significant that they erected the Arch of Titus to commemorate it.
When a speaker dresses up as the medieval idea of Jesus, he is not to be trusted!
YES, I DID make it until the end because this topic has intrigued me all my life, though not "obsessively" or ravenously.
Your breakdown definitely helped ME fill in gaps of what I have previously studied in the past because I had NO knowledge one, that the Savoy's gave away snippets of the cloth as gifts (EGADS!!!) or that it ended up in the hands of the French family after the seige in Constantinople. I mean, the siege part and what the French soldiers inventoried in their part of the loot. That was a huge gap in how I initially tried to track its progress from Jerusalem to Antioch. Where it went after leaving Antioch, I couldn't track with our poor pre-internet public/school library resources in the '70s and '80s, when I first began researching it.
So, thank you, THANK YOU so very much Metatron. I want to elevate my support from just being a sub to a member because what you present in your content is - from what I can tell - completely without personal bias. I mean that would defeat the purpose. Some folks don't grasp that, but I do.
So again, my many, many thanks for all your work and effort that I will soon help support!
Also, I've been a lifelong student of the history of Egypt and The Ptolemy's and that whole Netflix CleopaDRA debacle just left me befuddled and I loved YOUR video response to all that BS!
Love you much.
Your Florida Fan,
Lady Aszneth
😀👍
I don't know for his others videos (i just saw one other and he was really accurate in it) but unfortunately Metatron didn't did a great work on this video cuz there is a huge lack of science in his sources. He mostly took the speech of sindonologists and their non peer-reviewed papers. On the contrary, most of what he says here is refuted by the scientific studies (peer-reviewed, not like the ones of sindonologists) on the shroud.
No blood attested, wrong pollens and dust, anatomicaly wrong body, 3D informations of a bas-relief and not of a body, pigments founds on plenty places on the shroud, "blood" stains are in an impossible form for a horizontal leaking, anachronic weaving, pictural signs of a medieval work, a common trafic of fakes and relics in medieval time, negative painting is used since the beginning of Paleolithic Era, a lot of "signs" on the shroud are only seen by believers while the others signs are presents in text and others representations in medieval times, the carbon dating seems unaccurate but only by a few (some decades likes shown in Walsh Bryan and Schwalbe Larry's study in 2020) and still medieval, etc.
Oh and it's not even the only shroud which exist. More than 40 Jesus's burial clothes dates from medieval times were found in Europe.
Breathe of fresh air to not have my religion beaten with a hammer but taken seriously and respectfully.
christcuckery deserves to be mocked
@@ginyu5009 I'll pray for you brother.
@@t.o.g.thatoneguy5130 you can but it won't do anything because your Jewish got isn't real
@@ginyu5009 need a tissue? those coomer tears need it.
@@ginyu5009 Why are you so angry?
Thank you for such an interesting and well thought out analysis. As a Christian I am undecided on it's origins, but your historical discussion, including the level of detail that can be read in the image is fascinating.
As a Christian, you should read and believe your Bible for it states that there were two pieces of linen cloths and not one, John's gospel chapter 20 versus 5, 6, and 7.
@@ask4me78 Which would mean that one is missing
Also missed in metatron's video was a very recent study conducted in 2022 using X ray dating to date the shroud to being 2000 years old. To me that puts the nail in the coffin of the biggest objection to the shroud's validity.
Very interesting video, not many video's can present such detailed information whilst simultaneously keeping me interested enough to actually finish the video. However you managed to make that happen, so thanks.
I am glad to hear. Also I appreciate your kind comment thanks
Yes, well presented. I listened Megatron the first time and there was for sure quite a lot of research needed. Unfortunately Megatron did not show written quotes and the regarding sources according to the minimum scientific standard, neither in the video nor in the video description. That makes it impossible to proof the said. But this can be easily corrected. Otherwise such a video only can be considered as pseudo-scientific and this would be a pity.
I don't know for his others videos (i just saw one other and he was really accurate in it) but Metatron didn't did a great work on this video cuz there is a huge lack of science in his sources. He mostly took the speech of sindonologists and their non peer-reviewed papers. On the contrary, most of what he says here is refuted by the scientific studies (peer-reviewed, not like the ones of sindonologists) on the shroud.
No blood attested, wrong pollens and dust, anatomicaly wrong body, 3D informations of a bas-relief and not of a body, pigments founds on plenty places on the shroud, "blood" stains are in an impossible form for a horizontal leaking, anachronic weaving, pictural signs of a medieval work, a common trafic of fakes and relics in medieval time, negative painting is used since the beginning of Paleolithic Era, a lot of "signs" on the shroud are only seen by believers while the others signs are presents in text and others representations in medieval times, the carbon dating seems unaccurate but only by a few (some decades likes shown in Walsh Bryan and Schwalbe Larry's study in 2020) and still medieval, etc.
Oh and it's not even the only shroud which exist. More than 40 Jesus's burial clothes dates from medieval times were found in Europe. You can look at the work of Nicolas Sarzeaud about it.
@@wipo3654 The Shroud image is so incredible that the burden of proof rests on those who think it is a forgery. STURP team spent over two years preparing a series of tests that would gather a vast amount of Shroud data in a relatively short period of time. STURP's primary goal was to determine the scientific properties of the image on the Shroud of Turin, and what might have caused it: After years of exhaustive study and evaluation of the data, STURP issued its Final Report in 1981: "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 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." No one has ever proven these 33 scientists and engineers wrong. All were part of leading tech firms. Los Alamos National Scientific Laboratories* Lockheed Corporation* U.S. Air Force Weapons Laboratories* Brooks Institute of Photography* University of Colorado* Oceanographic Services Inc.* Nuclear Technology Corporation* U.S. Air Force Academy* Jet Propulsion Laboratory* Sandia National Laboratory*, etc. The STRUP team included three Jewish members, one Mormon, one Evangelical, several Catholics, several Protestants and some avowed atheists and agnostics. Had religion ever been a criterion for membership, most of the STURP team members would never have agreed to participate. The notion that it is a forgery (a painting, other work of art) has been disproved so thoroughly and absolutely that it is permanently buried; they are based in part on the denial of empirical data. The scholarly consensus a mere 60 years ago deemed the Shroud a medieval fraud; the present evidence allows a firm archaeological judgement for authenticity.
@@revedargent3467hello again 😅. John 3:16
Such a wonderful rabbit hole to get down into
Note on wrist vs. palm: Most of the carpal bones are located under the base of the palm; the place where the wrist flexes is actually the joint between the carpal bones and the radius and ulna of the forearm. So a nail between the carpal bones, either where Barbet believed it to go (between the lunate, capitate, hamate, and triquetrum) or where Zugibe believed it to go (between the capitate, scaphoid, and trapezoid), would appear to go into the base of the palm next to the mound at the base of the thumb. Both positions can hold a body and are consistent with the blood on the Shroud.
Where you're demonstrating the wound is between the radius and ulna, not through the carpus; there is at least one crucifixion victim who was nailed at that point.
Interesting perspective, thank you!!
GREAT work! I could write an essay praising your studious and effective effort here, but instead I just subscribed. This is the type and format that students can return to many times when studying and researching this artifact. Thank you.
Very well done! Informative and I felt that the video was unbiased.
I don't know for his others videos (i just saw one other and he was really accurate in it) but Metatron didn't did a great work on this video cuz there is a huge lack of science in his sources. He mostly took the speech of sindonologists and their non peer-reviewed papers. On the contrary, most of what he says here is refuted by the scientific studies (peer-reviewed, not like the ones of sindonologists) on the shroud.
No blood attested, wrong pollens and dust, anatomicaly wrong body, 3D informations of a bas-relief and not of a body, pigments founds on plenty places on the shroud, "blood" stains are in an impossible form for a horizontal leaking, anachronic weaving, pictural signs of a medieval work, a common trafic of fakes and relics in medieval time, negative painting is used since the beginning of Paleolithic Era, a lot of "signs" on the shroud are only seen by believers while the others signs are presents in text and others representations in medieval times, the carbon dating seems unaccurate but only by a few (some decades likes shown in Walsh Bryan and Schwalbe Larry's study in 2020) and still medieval, etc.
Oh and it's not even the only shroud which exist. More than 40 Jesus's burial clothes dates from medieval times were found in Europe. You can look at the work of Nicolas Sarzeaud about it.
Bloody brilliant video mate
❤ from Australia
I don't know for his others videos (i just saw one other and he was really accurate in it) but Metatron didn't did a great work on this video cuz there is a huge lack of science in his sources. He mostly took the speech of sindonologists and their non peer-reviewed papers. On the contrary, most of what he says here is refuted by the scientific studies (peer-reviewed, not like the ones of sindonologists) on the shroud.
No blood attested, wrong pollens and dust, anatomicaly wrong body, 3D informations of a bas-relief and not of a body, pigments founds on plenty places on the shroud, "blood" stains are in an impossible form for a horizontal leaking, anachronic weaving, pictural signs of a medieval work, a common trafic of fakes and relics in medieval time, negative painting is used since the beginning of Paleolithic Era, a lot of "signs" on the shroud are only seen by believers while the others signs are presents in text and others representations in medieval times, the carbon dating seems unaccurate but only by a few (some decades likes shown in Walsh Bryan and Schwalbe Larry's study in 2020) and still medieval, etc.
Oh and it's not even the only shroud which exist. More than 40 Jesus's burial clothes dates from medieval times were found in Europe. You can look at the work of Nicolas Sarzeaud about it.
I have read many books about the shroud (and about the "sudario de Oviedo"), and this video is a very sensible summary of the whole lot. Thank you!
This was surprisingly fascinating. I'm not a very religious person, I tend toward agnosticism, but I found this more interesting than I thought I would. If the shroud is real, though, then even from an entirely secular point of view that makes it of enormous historical significance. Whether Jesus was divine or not, this could actually be a real image of the man. That would be astounding if true.
It's not though. Even the Vatican won't come out and admit it's real.
I don't know for his others videos (i just saw one other and he was really accurate in it) but Metatron didn't did a great work on this video cuz there is a huge lack of science in his sources. He mostly took the speech of sindonologists and their non peer-reviewed papers. On the contrary, most of what he says here is refuted by the scientific studies (peer-reviewed, not like the ones of sindonologists) on the shroud.
No blood attested, wrong pollens and dust, anatomicaly wrong body, 3D informations of a bas-relief and not of a body, pigments founds on plenty places on the shroud, "blood" stains are in an impossible form for a horizontal leaking, anachronic weaving, pictural signs of a medieval work, a common trafic of fakes and relics in medieval time, negative painting is used since the beginning of Paleolithic Era, a lot of "signs" on the shroud are only seen by believers while the others signs are presents in text and others representations in medieval times, the carbon dating seems unaccurate but only by a few (some decades likes shown in Walsh Bryan and Schwalbe Larry's study in 2020) and still medieval, etc.
Oh it's not even the only shroud which exist. More than 40 Jesus's burial clothes dates from medieval times were found in Europe.
@@revedargent3467 Do you have links to these papers?
@@revedargent3467 Where are the other shrouds located, and what do they look like? I would like to see them
The shroud is encoded for 3D.
There is nothing like it in the world.
I disbelieve the shroud image as authentic because the head is a two deminsional block. Not seen are the sides of the head, at all. The head should be roughly double the width that is shown. Unless the shroud was hovering above the face, but just barely touching the face, the edges of the head would show. There are not even suggestions of the sides of the head.
The Shroud of Turin has been studied *tens of thousands of hours* by many dozens of scientists and doctors they have proven *100%* that it contained the body of a beaten, scourged, crucified man that was wearing a crown of thorns while on the cross and that it dates back to Biblical times. They cannot say 100% that it wrapped the body of Jesus Christ but no one with at least half a brain is going to think that it contained anyone other than him.
Great stuff again man
The scholarship on the video is as thorough as I can see. Thank you. And Happy New Year!
Thanks and happy new year to you!
Absolutely fantastic work.
I don't know for his others videos (i just saw one other and he was really accurate in it) but Metatron didn't did a great work on this video cuz there is a huge lack of science in his sources. He mostly took the speech of sindonologists and their non peer-reviewed papers. On the contrary, most of what he says here is refuted by the scientific studies (peer-reviewed, not like the ones of sindonologists) on the shroud.
No blood attested, wrong pollens and dust, anatomicaly wrong body, 3D informations of a bas-relief and not of a body, pigments founds on plenty places on the shroud, "blood" stains are in an impossible form for a horizontal leaking, anachronic weaving, pictural signs of a medieval work, a common trafic of fakes and relics in medieval time, negative painting is used since the beginning of Paleolithic Era, a lot of "signs" on the shroud are only seen by believers while the others signs are presents in text and others representations in medieval times, the carbon dating seems unaccurate but only by a few (some decades likes shown in Walsh Bryan and Schwalbe Larry's study in 2020) and still medieval, etc.
Oh and it's not even the only shroud which exist. More than 40 Jesus's burial clothes dates from medieval times were found in Europe.
Fantastic video, I appreciate the balanced approach with no real motive or bias behind it. Just displaying accounts and evidence. Exactly how history should be taught.
This is why I subscribe to this channel. You know your history, because you thoroughly research your subjects and refuse to sanitize history where the facts are presented.
I am in awe of The Metatron's erudition and depth of research on this. Your science kung fu is mighty, sir. One thing I come away with from this first-rate presentation is that what I think doesn't MATTER, I only look forward to the day that more samples can be taken and tested.
Yes his erudition and depth of research also impressed me. I will have to dis-agree with you on your science kung-fu comment tho. Its more science karate. Hope this helps 👍
Truly exceptional content. Bravo.
I don't know for his others videos (i just saw one other and he was really accurate in it) but Metatron didn't did a great work on this video cuz there is a huge lack of science in his sources. He mostly took the speech of sindonologists and their non peer-reviewed papers. On the contrary, most of what he says here is refuted by the scientific studies (peer-reviewed, not like the ones of sindonologists) on the shroud.
No blood attested, wrong pollens and dust, anatomicaly wrong body, 3D informations of a bas-relief and not of a body, pigments founds on plenty places on the shroud, "blood" stains are in an impossible form for a horizontal leaking, anachronic weaving, pictural signs of a medieval work, a common trafic of fakes and relics in medieval time, negative painting is used since the beginning of Paleolithic Era, a lot of "signs" on the shroud are only seen by believers while the others signs are presents in text and others representations in medieval times, the carbon dating seems unaccurate but only by a few (some decades likes shown in Walsh Bryan and Schwalbe Larry's study in 2020) and still medieval, etc.
Oh and it's not even the only shroud which exist. More than 40 Jesus's burial clothes dates from medieval times were found in Europe. You can look at the work of the historian Nicolas Sarzeaud about it.
Wow what a thorough job! This is the best presentation I have seen for the shroud. Thank you so very much for your efforts.
I don't know for his others videos (i just saw one other and he was really accurate in it) but Metatron didn't did a great work on this video cuz there is a huge lack of science in his sources. He mostly took the speech of sindonologists and their non peer-reviewed papers. On the contrary, most of what he says here is refuted by the scientific studies (peer-reviewed, not like the ones of sindonologists) on the shroud.
No blood attested, wrong pollens and dust, anatomicaly wrong body, 3D informations of a bas-relief and not of a body, pigments founds on plenty places on the shroud, "blood" stains are in an impossible form for a horizontal leaking, anachronic weaving, pictural signs of a medieval work, a common trafic of fakes and relics in medieval time, negative painting is used since the beginning of Paleolithic Era, a lot of "signs" on the shroud are only seen by believers while the others signs are presents in text and others representations in medieval times, the carbon dating seems unaccurate but only by a few (some decades likes shown in Walsh Bryan and Schwalbe Larry's study in 2020) and still medieval, etc.
Oh and it's not even the only shroud which exist. More than 40 Jesus's burial clothes dates from medieval times were found in Europe. You can look at the work of Nicolas Sarzeaud about it.
Wow you must be fun at a party. Do you troll his comments to put him down? If you know so much, why don't you post something that reflects your abundant and superior knowledge. I have only just found Metatron, but already I like him better than you. lmao @@revedargent3467
I feel so sorry for the atheist morons out there that really are dumb enough to actually believe that some medieval mad scientist created this in his hut somewhere. Ignorance is one thing but man! That is just as stupid a claim as can be made right there! Over the last several decades around 100 or so scientists and other researchers and their tens of thousands of hours of examination have PROVEN that the Shroud of Turin once wrapped the body of a beaten, scourged, and crucified man wearing a crown of thorns. Who else could this have been other than Jesus??
@@NewfyPearl Good for you. Sorry for debunking your beliefs.
@@revedargent3467 If you think you have debunked my beliefs you are giving yourself far too much unwarranted credit. This is my final response to you, as I have made it clear your opinion does not interest me.
Not going to lie this made me cry especially the ending part. Thanks for the video. God bless.
My first thought was it was painted in acid - some diluted form of oil of vitriol. It would selectively dehydrate the surface layers of the linen producing a very slight charring or browning. Later in this piece, it mentions this theory was discarded due to (lack of) capillarity. However a topical application of a dehydrating acid doesn't rely on capillarity, just contact with the surface strands - which is what is seen.
Surely the shroud would've been replicated by now if it was as simple as that. And even if that was a legitimate method by which medieval forgers would craft a fake relic, they would still need to craft it in such a way that they would anticipate all forensic developments such as blood and soil sampling, and would have to recreate an historically accurate depiction of a crucified man that was not consistent with their contemporary iconography.
Then why would the acid have only affected the most superficial layers of the cloth? Try applying acid to a cloth and notice how it penetrates beyond the superficial layers to affect the full thickness. It does not answer the question.
Fantastic work!
I don't know for his others videos (i just saw one other and he was really accurate in it) but Metatron didn't did a great work on this video cuz there is a huge lack of science in his sources. He mostly took the speech of sindonologists and their non peer-reviewed papers. On the contrary, most of what he says here is refuted by the scientific studies (peer-reviewed, not like the ones of sindonologists) on the shroud.
No blood attested, wrong pollens and dust, anatomicaly wrong body, 3D informations of a bas-relief and not of a body, pigments founds on plenty places on the shroud, "blood" stains are in an impossible form for a horizontal leaking, anachronic weaving, pictural signs of a medieval work, a common trafic of fakes and relics in medieval time, negative painting is used since the beginning of Paleolithic Era, a lot of "signs" on the shroud are only seen by believers while the others signs are presents in text and others representations in medieval times, the carbon dating seems unaccurate but only by a few (some decades likes shown in Walsh Bryan and Schwalbe Larry's study in 2020) and still medieval, etc.
Oh and it's not even the only shroud which exist. More than 40 Jesus's burial clothes dates from medieval times were found in Europe. You can look at the work of Nicolas Sarzeaud about it.
I just found your channel and find your videos fascinating!
I don't know for his others videos (i just saw one other and he was really accurate in it) but Metatron didn't did a great work on this video cuz there is a huge lack of science in his sources. He mostly took the speech of sindonologists and their non peer-reviewed papers. On the contrary, most of what he says here is refuted by the scientific studies (peer-reviewed, not like the ones of sindonologists) on the shroud.
No blood attested, wrong pollens and dust, anatomicaly wrong body, 3D informations of a bas-relief instead of a body, pigments founds on plenty places on the shroud, "blood" stains are in an impossible form for a horizontal leaking, anachronic weaving, pictural signs of a medieval work, a common trafic of fakes and relics in medieval time, negative painting is used since the beginning of Paleolithic Era, a lot of "signs" on the shroud are only seen by believers while the others signs are presents in text and others representations in medieval times, the carbon dating seems unaccurate but only by a few (some decades likes shown in Walsh Bryan and Schwalbe Larry's study in 2020) and still medieval, etc.
Oh and it's not even the only shroud which exist. More than 40 Jesus's burial clothes dates from medieval times were found in Europe. You can look at the work of Nicolas Sarzeaud about it.
@@revedargent3467do you just go through the comments and break everyone’s hopes? You’re literally everywhere
Videos like this are examples of the quality I love from your content. Very clear, meticulous research presented in a very balanced way. Fantastic as always!
You do such an unbiased and objective analysis of this that I have no idea whether you're religious or not, and all the work you showed was very informative helpful. Mandatory watching for anyone interested in the Shroud.
Metatron, you are a gift to humanity ! I truly appreciate your intelligence and the precision and dedication that you bring to your videos.
This was done soooooooo professionally and unbiased. Metatron, you always do fantastic world but on this one you hit it so far out the ball park!
I once watched a program that essentially brought to life the man who's image is on the shroud. Digitally speaking. It was incredible.
Great video! Thank you for putting so much of your time and work into creating these videos for us to watch.
I cant believe i trolled this guy the first time i came across his content...i think i was drunk and on some bs...
now im a huge fan with loads of respect for the man.
This is an amazing channel.. Just discovered you today. Wow. Subscribed!!
This is the most informative, well researched and high quality documentary of the shroud I have ever seen. Excellent! Thank you so much. You are quite talented and I appreciate your efforts immensely.
I don't know for his others videos (i just saw one other and he was really accurate in it) but Metatron didn't did a great work on this video cuz there is a huge lack of science in his sources. He mostly took the speech of sindonologists and their non peer-reviewed papers. On the contrary, most of what he says here is refuted by the scientific studies (peer-reviewed, not like the ones of sindonologists) on the shroud.
No blood attested, wrong pollens and dust, anatomicaly wrong body, 3D informations of a bas-relief and not of a body, pigments founds on plenty places on the shroud, "blood" stains are in an impossible form for a horizontal leaking, anachronic weaving, pictural signs of a medieval work, a common trafic of fakes and relics in medieval time, negative painting is used since the beginning of Paleolithic Era, a lot of "signs" on the shroud are only seen by believers while the others signs are presents in text and others representations in medieval times, the carbon dating seems unaccurate but only by a few (some decades likes shown in Walsh Bryan and Schwalbe Larry's study in 2020) and still medieval, etc.
Oh and it's not even the only shroud which exist. More than 40 Jesus's burial clothes dates from medieval times were found in Europe.
Do not pay any attention to anything the God denying lying atheist Rêve D'Argent says. It was *proven* by many dozens of doctors, scientists, archeologists, and other highly trained researchers and their _tens of thousands of hours_ of examination that the Shroud *most definitely* wrapped the body of a severely beaten, scourged and crucified man that was wearing a crown or cap of thorns before he died. *PROVEN.* Only an imbecile would be dumb enough to think that this was someone other than our Lord Jesus
@@revedargent3467 Stop spamming the same lies.
@@11aaf sorry but it's not because it doesn't fit your beliefs that's a lie
@@revedargent3467If you have to spam it, it means you are in the wrooong :)
You arw making the claim, you have thw burden of proof
I've been following shroud research for a while now, I was little when the C14 was announced. I only "re discovered" it in the past ten or so years. That said, this was a really well done account of the shroud, I knew I could trust you with this Metatron!
That was very interesting material!
Glad you think so
This is the best video ever made on the shroud
This is such a great video! Always enjoy your content metatron!
Wow! This was a very interesting and detailed documentary! Many thanks, Metatron, and happy new year!
Great video.. a lot of very interesting information
I don't know for his others videos (i just saw one other and he was really accurate in it) but Metatron didn't did a great work on this video cuz there is a huge lack of science in his sources. He mostly took the speech of sindonologists and their non peer-reviewed papers. On the contrary, most of what he says here is refuted by the scientific studies (peer-reviewed, not like the ones of sindonologists) on the shroud.
No blood attested, wrong pollens and dust, anatomicaly wrong body, 3D informations of a bas-relief and not of a body, pigments founds on plenty places on the shroud, "blood" stains are in an impossible form for a horizontal leaking, anachronic weaving, pictural signs of a medieval work, a common trafic of fakes and relics in medieval time, negative painting is used since the beginning of Paleolithic Era, a lot of "signs" on the shroud are only seen by believers while the others signs are presents in text and others representations in medieval times, the carbon dating seems unaccurate but only by a few (some decades likes shown in Walsh Bryan and Schwalbe Larry's study in 2020) and still medieval, etc.
Oh and it's not even the only shroud which exist. More than 40 Jesus's burial clothes dates from medieval times were found in Europe. You can look at the work of Nicolas Sarzeaud about it.
The Shroud image is so incredible that the burden of proof rests on those out there that are actually stupid enough to want to call it a forgery. STURP team spent over two years preparing a series of tests that would gather a vast amount of Shroud data in a relatively short period of time. STURP's primary goal was to determine the scientific properties of the image on the Shroud of Turin, and what might have caused it: After years of exhaustive study and evaluation of the data, STURP issued its Final Report in 1981: "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 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." No one has ever proven these 33 scientists and engineers wrong. All were part of leading tech firms. Los Alamos National Scientific Laboratories* Lockheed Corporation* U.S. Air Force Weapons Laboratories* Brooks Institute of Photography* University of Colorado* Oceanographic Services Inc.* Nuclear Technology Corporation* U.S. Air Force Academy* Jet Propulsion Laboratory* Sandia National Laboratory*, etc. The STRUP team included three Jewish members, one Mormon, one Evangelical, several Catholics, several Protestants and some avowed atheists and agnostics. Had religion ever been a criterion for membership, most of the STURP team members would never have agreed to participate. The notion that it is a forgery (a painting, other work of art) has been disproved so thoroughly and absolutely that it is permanently buried; they are based in part on the denial of empirical data. The scholarly consensus a mere 60 years ago deemed the Shroud a medieval fraud; the present evidence allows a firm archaeological judgement for authenticity.
Very interesting Noble one! And based on what is known and what the shroud is like today! Good research as always!
As I learn more and more about the Shroud, I feel more inclined to accept it as a true relic.
Short of Jesus himself producing a UA-cam video in person confirming that is his shroud, witnessed first-hand by many separate parties, you'll never have definitive proof.
Stay skeptical
It's most definitely a historical crucifixion shroud, but no telling who was buried with it, probably not Jesus
A fake but a good fake
@@srgmiller340 How did they get the image on the shroud without painting it on in medieval Europe?
ua-cam.com/video/wDJunR7wuZ4/v-deo.html
ua-cam.com/video/BUQkbEpukvE/v-deo.html
I'm a catholic and honestly the Carbon Dating made me think it must have been a medieval forgery of some sort. But a lot of these information is new to me and make me more curious about it, it isn't as clear cut as i was led to believe.
I agree with you, we need another test of multiple samples to get more accurate information on its date.
It’s definitely one hell of a Medieval forgery
Pollen from Jerusalem dust that would fit with Jerusalem linen made in a way that wasn’t used at the time treated in a way that wasn’t done at the time. Some how blood got on their but it wasn’t painted on and then some how we don’t know someone made a true negative reversed image of a man with injuries totally consistent with crucifixion. Including nail through the wrist although most medieval art showed it as through the hand
I suspect the carbon dating issue is potentially due to the fire that caused the scorch marks or was patching used to repair it
That's assuming some anti Catholic doesn't destroy it first.
The Catholic Church is strict about these relics compared to what others believe asit has had a history of dealing with so called relics that turned out to be fake in its history.
@@arnowisp6244
It's more likely that the catholic church will destroy the shroud before they allow more testing.
It's one of the very few remaining "relics" that haven't been disproven yet.
The carbon dating is wrong- the 14th century dating is due to the fire that nearly destroyed it. Smoke being the byproduct of fire is made up of carbon and would saturate the cloth making dating it impossible. Retired firefighter by the way. Lol
Well done, man, well done! Excellent presentation. What a fascinating artifact. Thanks!
I don't know for his others videos (i just saw one other and he was really accurate in it) but Metatron didn't did a great work on this video cuz there is a huge lack of science in his sources. He mostly took the speech of sindonologists and their non peer-reviewed papers. On the contrary, most of what he says here is refuted by the scientific studies (peer-reviewed, not like the ones of sindonologists) on the shroud.
No blood attested, wrong pollens and dust, anatomicaly wrong body, 3D informations of a bas-relief instead of a body, pigments founds on plenty places on the shroud, "blood" stains are in an impossible form for a horizontal leaking, anachronic weaving, pictural signs of a medieval work, a common trafic of fakes and relics in medieval time, negative painting is used since the beginning of Paleolithic Era, a lot of "signs" on the shroud are only seen by believers while the others signs are presents in text and others representations in medieval times, the carbon dating seems unaccurate but only by a few (some decades likes shown in Walsh Bryan and Schwalbe Larry's study in 2020) and still medieval, etc.
Oh and it's not even the only shroud which exist. More than 40 Jesus's burial clothes dates from medieval times were found in Europe. You can look at the work of Nicolas Sarzeaud about it.
@@revedargent3467 If you are dumb enough to believe the Shroud is a fake, then you must explain how whoever fabricated it must have:
1. Known the precise methods of crucifixion in the first century.
2. Be proficient enough in over 100 scientific disciplines and also collectively outweigh the intelligence of the people who performed hundreds and hundreds of tests on the Shroud and who are not finding any indications of a forgery.
3. Possessed the medical knowledge of a modern expert surgeon.
4. Utilized an art process unknown to any great master, never duplicated before or since.
5. Be able to foresee and approximate principles of photographic negativity that would not be discovered for centuries.
6. Imported a piece of old cloth of Middle Eastern manufacture.
7. Used a coloring agent which would be unaffected by intense heat.
8. Be able to incorporate in his work details (that have only recently been discovered), that the human eye cannot see and that are visible only with the most advanced computer-scanning devices.
9. Be able to reproduce flawlessly, on a nearly flat linen surface, in a single color, undistorted 3-D characteristics of a human body in a 'negative format' on the tops of the threads, while conversely showing the 'blood' as positive and soaking all the way through.
10. Get somewhere the blood of a tortured man and apply it before creating the image.
11. Get limestone from Jerusalem, and pollen particles from the middle east, in special from plants with thorns, that flourish only between March and April.
@@revedargent3467there you are 😂. Repent for the wages of sin is death.
This content is better than anything on the history channel. Good job man.
I don't know for his others videos (i just saw one other and he was really accurate in it) but Metatron didn't did a great work on this video cuz there is a huge lack of science in his sources. He mostly took the speech of sindonologists and their non peer-reviewed papers. On the contrary, most of what he says here is refuted by the scientific studies (peer-reviewed, not like the ones of sindonologists) on the shroud.
No blood attested, wrong pollens and dust, anatomicaly wrong body, 3D informations of a bas-relief and not of a body, pigments founds on plenty places on the shroud, "blood" stains are in an impossible form for a horizontal leaking, anachronic weaving, pictural signs of a medieval work, a common trafic of fakes and relics in medieval time, negative painting is used since the beginning of Paleolithic Era, a lot of "signs" on the shroud are only seen by believers while the others signs are presents in text and others representations in medieval times, the carbon dating seems unaccurate but only by a few (some decades likes shown in Walsh Bryan and Schwalbe Larry's study in 2020) and still medieval, etc.
Oh and it's not even the only shroud which exist. More than 40 Jesus's burial clothes dates from medieval times were found in Europe. You can look at the work of Nicolas Sarzeaud about it.
The Shroud image is so incredible that the burden of proof rests on those who think it is a forgery. STURP team spent over two years preparing a series of tests that would gather a vast amount of Shroud data in a relatively short period of time. STURP's primary goal was to determine the scientific properties of the image on the Shroud of Turin, and what might have caused it: After years of exhaustive study and evaluation of the data, STURP issued its Final Report in 1981: "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 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." No one has ever proven these 33 scientists and engineers wrong. All were part of leading tech firms. Los Alamos National Scientific Laboratories* Lockheed Corporation* U.S. Air Force Weapons Laboratories* Brooks Institute of Photography* University of Colorado* Oceanographic Services Inc.* Nuclear Technology Corporation* U.S. Air Force Academy* Jet Propulsion Laboratory* Sandia National Laboratory*, etc. The STRUP team included three Jewish members, one Mormon, one Evangelical, several Catholics, several Protestants and some avowed atheists and agnostics. Had religion ever been a criterion for membership, most of the STURP team members would never have agreed to participate. The notion that it is a forgery (a painting, other work of art) has been disproved so thoroughly and absolutely that it is permanently buried; they are based in part on the denial of empirical data. The scholarly consensus a mere 60 years ago deemed the Shroud a medieval fraud; the present evidence allows a firm archaeological judgement for authenticity.
@@revedargent3467 If you really are an atheist stupid enough to believe the Shroud is a fake, then you must explain how whoever fabricated it must have:
1. Known the precise methods of crucifixion in the first century.
2. Be proficient enough in over 100 scientific disciplines and also collectively outweigh the intelligence of the people who performed hundreds and hundreds of tests on the Shroud and who are not finding any indications of a forgery.
3. Possessed the medical knowledge of a modern expert surgeon.
4. Utilized an art process unknown to any great master, never duplicated before or since.
5. Be able to foresee and approximate principles of photographic negativity that would not be discovered for centuries.
6. Imported a piece of old cloth of Middle Eastern manufacture.
7. Used a coloring agent which would be unaffected by intense heat.
8. Be able to incorporate in his work details (that have only recently been discovered), that the human eye cannot see and that are visible only with the most advanced computer-scanning devices.
9. Be able to reproduce flawlessly, on a nearly flat linen surface, in a single color, undistorted 3-D characteristics of a human body in a 'negative format' on the tops of the threads, while conversely showing the 'blood' as positive and soaking all the way through.
10. Get somewhere the blood of a tortured man and apply it before creating the image.
11. Get limestone from Jerusalem, and pollen particles from the middle east, in special from plants with thorns, that flourish only between March and April.
I just realized how good the quality of the audio is. Congrats and happy new year to you and Kenzie!
Thanks for a well-balanced approach to the issue. As a Roman Catholic I have leaned towards the cloth being authentic but clearly, we don't know, and my faith is not based on that cloth whatsoever. I've never really leaned towards the carbon dating problem, given that the porous linen has been in the presence of smoke (incense and outright fires) for hundreds of years. It is important to note that sometimes the answer is "we don't know (yet)." And while there have been clear forgeries in the past there are many things where the answers are currently, we do not know yet. Since there is no real active in depth studies we may never really know.
The Catholic Church says it's fake. The Church has known it was fake since the Middle Ages when they found the actual forger. There is no scientific debate or controversy over this fake piece of cloth.
The unsolved mysteries about the shroud that can't be solved _["yet"]_ by our supposedly so intelligent societies should get you to strongly reconsider that just maybe, that was a supernatural effect after all that man will never be able to explain by physical sciences and thus infers that just maybe, it really is the shroud of the true Lord.
Also something that people would miss is that in Orthodox Church there is a long standing tradition of Replicating Relics (especially icons) as a prayerful exercise. Often so as to share the wonder and beauty of the Relic with others so that they may receive the benefits of blessings that come from inspired icons. Therefore considering it was said to have come from Constantinople during the Crusades. It may have been possible the one from Constantinople was such a replica presented to the Bishop of Constantinople from an earlier time by the Bishop of Jerusalem. The possible replica would be presented during Divine Liturgy as the Original was considered too Sacred to remove from the Original Reliquary (as was possibly in Jerusalem).
@@KebaRPG there is the practice of icons within the Orthodox Church. But this is where it gets strange, because icons aren't "drawn" but "written" and as such reflect a visual language that is not in and of itself merely a replication of an image. Iconography is not, by its nature, realistic. Thus, at least in Constantinople, it would have been considered more of a relic than a proper icon.
@@RemnantDiscipleLazzaro-Rev1217 but here is the problem, but this is a real minor one. God created the world and the laws of the universe. God cannot deceive or go against His nature. Therefore, He cannot (and will not) violate the laws that He Himself ordained. Since we barely grasp the real "laws" of the universe, it is hard to prove that there isn't a strange "explanation" (no matter how implausible) for this event.
Great video thank you so much!
I don't know for his others videos (i just saw one other and he was really accurate in it) but Metatron didn't did a great work on this video cuz there is a huge lack of science in his sources. He mostly took the speech of sindonologists and their non peer-reviewed papers. On the contrary, most of what he says here is refuted by the scientific studies (peer-reviewed, not like the ones of sindonologists) on the shroud.
No blood attested, wrong pollens and dust, anatomicaly wrong body, 3D informations of a bas-relief and not of a body, pigments founds on plenty places on the shroud, "blood" stains are in an impossible form for a horizontal leaking, anachronic weaving, pictural signs of a medieval work, a common trafic of fakes and relics in medieval time, negative painting is used since the beginning of Paleolithic Era, a lot of "signs" on the shroud are only seen by believers while the others signs are presents in text and others representations in medieval times, the carbon dating seems unaccurate but only by a few (some decades likes shown in Walsh Bryan and Schwalbe Larry's study in 2020) and still medieval, etc.
Oh and it's not even the only shroud which exist. More than 40 Jesus's burial clothes dates from medieval times were found in Europe. You can look at the work of Nicolas Sarzeaud about it.
@@revedargent3467I’m starting to think you’re just a bot, you keep saying the same stuff word for word in several different comment threads
@@pelinalwhitestrake9612 when 1000 people say the same stuff, you don't need to change your answer for each of them. That's why i just copy-past my own comment. It's easier and faster than to just repear the same stuff in 1000 different ways.
@@revedargent3467 literally all the guy did was say he like the video, it was unnecessary to try and disprove something that didn’t need to be disproven. If you actually want to debate, how about you go and find one of the several comments where debating is prevalent instead of just ripping into people who were merely exclaiming their liking for the video
@@pelinalwhitestrake9612 because some people actually answer and start potentialy interesting discussion. While the comments with the most posts under (if you're refering to them) aren't always the best place to start a debate.
Also, i don't know what you're talking about cuz i talked to a lot of peoples in debate post with sometimes several people and i never avoided any place to debate, as long as i wasn't tired at the moment of course.
Sure do like the song at the end thank you for your excellent work