Have scientists confirmed the authenticity of the Shroud of Turin?

#maklelan2222 @dailymail

[stoferb]

A scholar of this shroud (or medieval historian) actually noted that as far as the medieval church was concerned it was denounced as a forgery and forgotten until the 20th century, so it's not like devout catholics have any real reason to think it's legit anyway. Only two tiny medieval villages squabbled over the authenticity of this shroud for a few decades until it came to some the attention of higher authorities in the church who then investigated the matter and concluded it was a forgery.

[mosog]

Forgery yet nobody can replicate it? Seriously?

[marcobell]

Dan, you give new meaning to the phrase my mother used to sometimes use: “he has the patience of a saint.” 😁

[SiskaRobert]

Christians are always quite funny with their 'relics'. Reminds me of the old joke: "If all the relics that are claimed to be of St. John the Baptist were put together, he'd have to have had six heads and ten legs."

[KaijuOfTheOpera]

Something Dan leaves out. An object that first appears in the second half of the 14th century, and whose first mention in writing comes from a complaint by the bishop of Lirey, Pierre d'Arcis, c.1390, to Pope Clement VII at Avignon, saying it's a fake, and the forger has confessed. The most interesting part of this.

[randysmith]

I once heard a historian say that if you gathered all the pieces of the true cross and the nails used to crucify Jesus that are revered as relics, you could build an ark .
Belief is a very strange thing.

[bekindrewind]

I'm unconvinced on the authenticity of the shroud. However a lot of this video seems to be just attacking the authors (at 1:33 and also the creators at 0:28) rather than addressing the argument being made or the data behind it. Which seems to go against the whole data over dogma that is preached on this channel!

[thewalruswasjason]

The dating done in 1989 was done on a repaired section. It has been known for a while now, and that research was thrown out because of that reason. And scientists still have no idea how the image is on the fabric.

[jeeves]

The negative image on the cloth is only on the top two microns of the 200 that make up of one strand of the linen. How in the heck could an artist draw or paint that microscopically accurate to keep it from soaking though the whole 200 microns of the linen thread ? It's impossible! The scientists that have been studying the shroud since the 1970's and still haven't figured out how the image got there.

[margatnikov]

They could produce this centuries before photography and still no one today can copy it ???

[Baptist_Jim]

# Why the Shroud of Turin is FAKE:

1. The Shroud is one single cloth. However, in John 20:7 we see that the the real burial clothes consisted of at least two different cloths.

2. The Shroud gives Jesus long hair. Jesus would not have had long hair as it is a shame for men to have long hair (1 Corinthians 11:14).

3. The Shroud has Jesus with a beard. However, according to Isaiah's prophecy of Jesus, His beard was ripped out (Isaiah 50:6).

4. Jesus in the Shroud is too recognizable. In Isaiah 52:14 it says Jesus was so wounded that you could not tell who He was. However, on the Shroud, you can make out the features of the face as well as the body.

[billirons]

So Dan, how did the image of a crucified man, both the front and back image, appear on the shroud? Isn’t that really just the main question? How did it get there Dan? What is your best answer?

[emmanuelceliz]

But the fact remains that with all the technology available today, no scholar or scientist who claim forgery could say how exactly the image got imprinted on the fabric.

[hermeticascetic]

"it's a mid 14th century forgery"

Except they also determined that the piece that was tested was a repair to the cloth and not the original fabric

[maryc]

First time they tested the repaired pieces not the original.

[silviu-georgepantelimon]

A crazy thing happened, I investigated the claims made in the articles and I arrived to the same conclusions as Dan did before the video popped up. Thanks Dan for confirming my suspicions!

[saruphim]

Hey Dan; it was already proven that the part of the shroud they carbon dated was interspliced and repaired with medieval cloth in a very expensive process known as French reweaving; hence the medieval carbon 14 date. Look it up. The carbon 14 date has been already debunked years ago. No one has been able to produce the same properties as the shroud. Hence, the shroud is literally the first photograph ever taken. Roy Roger’s disproved the carbon 14 date already. Most people that know about the shroud know this already. Just look it up. Barrie Schwortz who recently passed away and was the official shroud photographer for the STERP team that tested the shroud in the 70s knew Ray Roger’s personally and confirms Roger’s findings. The carbon 14 date is null and void. It’s not to say the carbon 14 date is wrong. No; it was right. But the part they tested was part medieval/modern and part ancient times going back to 2000 years ago, hence the new evidence. Look it up everybody.

[tobias]

Thank you Dan!
I knew it already. They are just grasping for straws. Shroud of Turin was long ago proven to be a medieval Gothic art, used as forgery. The proportions of both the face and body on the Shroud of Turin are inconsistent with those of a real human and are more indicative of late medieval Gothic art. The head is too small compared to the body, with an abnormal body-to-head height ratio of 8.3, whereas normally proportioned adult males have a ratio of 7 to 7.5. The face has an unrealistically small forehead and a long lower face, which was common in Gothic art.
Typically, the head from the top of the eyebrows to the top of the skull forms around 40% of the head, or about 80-100 mm. However, on the Shroud, this portion forms only 25% of the head, measuring no more than 60 mm. In medieval art, which was symbolic rather than strictly realistic, physical proportions were of less concern. Thus, almost all medieval artistic depictions show people with disproportionate heads, exactly what we find on the so-called Shroud. This suggests that it wasn't a linen with a real human face underneath.The body is disproportionately elongated, with unnaturally long and thin legs, torso, and arms. The arms are of different lengths, with the right forearm noticeably longer than the left. The front and back images on the Shroud are different lengths (1.95 meters vs. 2.02 meters), which is implausible for a real body but could result from an artist creating the images separately. Multiple researchers, including Joe Nickell and Gregory S. Paul, have concluded that the proportions are unrealistic and more consistent with Gothic artistic conventions than with those of an actual person.

[tripletrollface]

The methodology of the 1989 radio carbon dating has already been proven to be faulty when prof. Casabianca forced the British Museum to release the data in 2017.

The faulty radio carbon dating is also the only real "evidence" Shroud-deniers have against the authenticity claims (their other arguments are incredibly weak compared to the evidence and arguments in favour).

To this day they still can't explain how the image appeared on the cloth.

We're supposed to believe that the "rational skeptic" position is that a 14th century artist/forger outwitted 21st century science and 50 years of rigorous scientific scrutiny.

It's absolutely laughable.

[jahpickney]

I am a Christian, and agree that it is a forgery.