Agreed, he had short shoulder length hair like the other Galilean Jews of the early first century- just like the Shroud Man has.

@@RealSeekers Look at the earliest artistic depictions of him. Shorn hair cut like all Galilean Jews back then. Much shorter than the shroud image which was the conception of what Jesus looked like around 1,000 CE/AD.

@eximusic while he may have had short hair like you said, the early images don’t really prove that. Most Gentile Christians didn’t know what Jesus looked like, and so they based that image on what they knew Caesar to look like (short hair, no beard). It’s recognised by scholarship that this is where those images come from.

@@samueljennings4809 They're still earlier conceptions than the long haired, bearded Jesus which was patterned after Greek gods. And it was common practice in 1st century Palestine for Jewish men to have their hair cut.

Heritage is a peer-reviewed journal meaning the work was indeed peer-reviewed by experts outside of the authors of the paper- do you even know how peer-review works? Also, I was told you were elsewhere making racist comments about Italians, I haven't seen that post but it's weird that even here you keep calling two human beings made in the Image of God simply by their nationality as "Italians" all the time- you racist against Italians for some reason skeptic? You think Italian scientists are somehow inferior to other scientists?

@RealSeekers Heritage withdrew a paper about the blood on the Shroud from the same two Italians back in 2017 because of evidence bias from the two very scrupulous so-called Shroud promoters. Show me an independent paper that supports the findings from these two Italians and their Waxs X-ray machine, cos I can't find one, so if it's been peer reviewed show me one.! By the way, the Italians themselves in both their 2019 and 2022 papers declare that their findings are NOT 100% accurate, they say that themselves..?

@RealSeekers Italian is NOT an ethnicity.

@RealSeekers By the way Heritage puts papers up to be peer reviewed, they are NOT peer reviewed before they go up.

@RealSeekers Heritage has already withdrawn a paper in 2017 about the blood on the shroud. These two tried to put up because of evidence bias by the Two men in question. Manipulation to get the results you started out to get.

Thanks, I do try my best to be fair and allow both sides to present their best case as I truly believe the Shroud evidence is good evidence and so I think it can and should be able to withstand scrutiny from the best skeptical counter arguments. I have received criticism form some behind the scenes for featuring skeptics on my show, but I believe that allowing for the interaction or engagement is how we get past the entrenched talking points and move forward on sharing the truth about the Shroud :)

No, there is tons of good evidence showing the Shroud is real, some of which even Falk recognized as being factual as well. But depends on what you mean by real I suppose- on the images themselves- see all the peer-reviewed papers from STURP here = shroud.com/78papers.htm

​@RealSeekers No he didn't.

@@Fluffysweep I think he did, he affirmed things like Bill Meacham's isotope study or affirmed several of the physical properties of the Shroud images and he also affirmed that he doesn't think certain image forming mechanisms like traditional painting and powder-rubbing work as explanations and hence he is looking into a different method.

@@Fluffysweep Go watch his material on the subject. He goes study by study.

@Metanoia_Magna There's enough info in this video to dismiss the shroud. I have read the papers (the two Italians) put out about the wide angle x-ray/ Waxs, including the one they themselves withdraw from peer review.. They admitted to not doing "Blind Testing," which is a huge read herring in this kind of field study.. And finally, you should look up Richard Neave and his recent research, because using science they put together a 3d model of what a man from old Palestine, Galilee in Nazareth would have looked like and it looks nothing like that Byzantine image on the shroud... I believe you all been duped, which is why the papacy has had nothing to do with it.

Hey Jaime, fancy meeting you here, I always see you on Faith Unaltered or other channels, so glad to see you on Real Seekers here- welcome my friend and thanks for the compliment :) I talked to David after the show and he enjoyed his time on the show, he is coming back to speak to me about the Exodus at some point after my vacation :)

Yeah that is another issue I had in my notes just to mention that there was no silver found on the Shroud and so I wanted to say some question that silver melted and caused those burn marks during the fire. But it just seemed as a minor point.

@@RealSeekers did you mention the invisible serum rings around the bloodstains? I forget if you did but that's another strong point for us.

@@fyrerayne8882 I had that in my notes of things to ask him when I got to the spectral tests, but I didn't get a chance to ask him about it as I think we only covered the X-ray fluorescence spectral results- mostly Falk seems to have looked at the chemical studies that STURP did not so much the spectral or physical property studies as much- from my understanding at least. But yeah, that would have been a great point to raise that didn't get mentioned in the show unfortunately.

Hi Metal, thank you for your honesty and for being open to following the truth no matter where it leads. Obviously, I don't want anyone's belief in the Shroud to diminish on my end, but sometimes God uses objections we can't answer in the here and now to drive us to overcome them. So while I'm sure some Pro-Shroud proponents (no names for privacy) will be using your post here to scold me for having Falk on as a skeptic because it can lead to some having doubts such as yourself, I nevertheless disagree with those people and I see the great value in considering both sides of the argument- if I had never done this myself, I never would have had the much firmer foundation of faith in Jesus that I have today compared to back in 2010 right before I left the faith- I chose not to hide from those doubts, but to address them head on and over time, God used them to bring me back to faith stronger than ever. I have no doubt the same will be the case with you and the Shroud, just remember to be a Real Seeker, do your best to seriously consider both sides first before you make any decisions after hearing only one side of things on this show. Yep I do think Falk, when he takes the time to have a fully informed opinion, is a very formidable "skeptic" (I know he doesn't like that term), but yeah, his critique on the WAXS dating method for example is indeed better than any other skeptical critique out there that I've seen, it even has me doubting it until I can hear from Fanti and De Caro and also Kowalski on it. That said, Falk also had some evident limitations in his Shroud studies as well which is through no fault of his own as I'd agree he is remarkably informed as someone new to the Shroud from just 9 months ago, but still there were responses to a lot of his criticisms which I didn't raise on the show since this was an interview format not a debate format. Regardless, I'm just sort of curious to see if I'm able to help at all, was there anything in particular that Falk mentioned which is causing your faith in the Shroud to be shaky- was it the WAXS stuff or something else?

@@RealSeekers thank you for the great response! First off, as much as this interview was pressing I would still with much confidence say that I will always remain as a pro shroud advocate. I think what is there is too much to refute. As I stated briefly before, it really surprised me how much falk seemed to know. He basically had an answer for every question you asked with him previously stating shroud research was fairly new to him. Because of this, I am taking everything he said with a grain of salt. The responses were very much ‘Jack of all trades master of none’. I feel the pro shroud team with have some killer feedback. I think there are many cases where falk should have remained agnostic and not preaching things like he is up to date with all of the knowledge. Something I could point out with my very limited knowledge (still fairly decent) is that appealing to average burial customs of the time for why the should and Sudaeium is not likely is just silly to me. We are dealing with a burial by Jews who have watched their messiah crucified. There is a lot going on and this can change everything when coming to burial. I think the main thing that got me concerned was falks confidence in being able to figure out artist techniques and why sturp wasn’t legit in their experiments. I can say with a lot of certainty that he will not be able to recreate an image. Thanks.

@@metaldisciple Yeah the bit on the Shroud and Sudarium being on at the same time did not make sense to me as it's purpose is to capture the blood and so it would have been used for transport which is what the bloodstains themselves reflect, it doesn't make sense for it to be used on Jesus after he was washed, I'm trying to find any sources that say what Falk did on this and can't find any. Mark Niyr wrote an entire book on ancient burial traditions including from the Mishnah which supports what I said on some things against Falk and which date to the first century- he was on my Panel Review Part 6 and his book is for free on my Blog = realseekerministries.wordpress.com/2023/04/29/shroud-wars-panel-review-part-6-historical-anatomical-authenticity/ I'm not sure what you mean by figuring out artist techniques, if you mean he has thought of a mechanism unknown in history books or something, well again he gave no details and so I can't really assess it or not, thankfully he agreed to come on to share his findings when he is finished, so we just have to wait to see what he is talking about but it is not a Powder rubbing or traditional painting is all we know, so no need to be worried esp. as I'm not sure if Falk was even trying to replicate the MRF's until I mentioned them and we all know if those aren't replicated then the experiment is a failure- even Falk mentioned the vertically mapped wrapping distortions are a big problem. As to STURP not being legit, you have to remember Falk is not a scientist and these results were published in peer-reviewed papers by actual scientists whereas McCrone's wasn't- STURP's conclusions have stood the test of time and McCrone's have not- even Hugh Farey who knows all the latest updates agrees that there is indeed blood on the Shroud- Shroud agnostics like Dr. Kelly Kearse have proven that beyond all reasonable doubt at this point- we may not be able to prove it is human blood, but that it is blood is NOT even a question at this point. Obviously, for Hugh he also thinks there is paint present as well as the blood- similar to Giulio Fanti with the touch up hypothesis which I and STURP deny, but Falk is just in error that blood has not been proven to be on there. Have you seen my show with Kelly Kearse or his papers on that front? = www.shroud.com/pdfs/kearse.pdf Another good paper is by Thibault Heimburger who goes over all the tests done chemically on the Shroud = www.shroud.com/pdfs/thibault%20final%2001.pdf - it is the best overall summary of all the tests done by McCrone and Sturp AND WHY sturp IS TO BE PREFERRED. Another great video is from Al Adler in 1986- a conference presentation proving it is blood and no paint (Walter McCrone is also on video at that same conference if you wish to cmpare and contrast) but Al has this great little point in the video that I think will put the kybosh on Falk's arguments against STURP and their tests being inconclusive, look in terms of the all the dozens and dozens of spectral and chemical tests performed, there will always be some ad hoc way to evade the conclusion that it's not paint and is indeed blood, but in the end such is not science because it violates Ockham's Razor- STURP can explain all the data and test results by positing a single substance- blood, the skeptics like Falk can't, they would have to posit something like 12-15 different substances to cumulatively explain all the different tests- it is clear that the rational person should favour the simplest explanation. Red Ochre and vermillion pigments alone simply cannot account for all of the tests done on the Shroud, blood can. Here is the video with Alan Adler = ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-T3ZEkEjA4Uw.html Plus, the vermillion pigment via the X-Ray absorption curves he asked me about which I do recognize from Shroud books, but had to admit I wouldn't be able to recognize such curves if weren't for someone explaining them in the Shroud books, etc.- Falk doesn't mention that this was only found on one single Shroud sample- sample "3CB" by his team not McCrone (boy McCrone sure was livid that his team did better than him and found something he completely missed as he himself admits in his own book) and was not discovered by McCrone on any of the samples he personally examined. Vermillion is NOT on the Shroud apart from that one sample whereby it is clearly contamination not the composition of the images (blood or body). So yeah, the Pro-Shroud side has plenty of answers to what Falk said on that front but again this was an interview and not a debate and so I think it is important to hear what he has to say without needing to get the last word all the time- as Real Seekers we need to ensure we don't decide on anything until we've heard the best from both sides first :)

@@RealSeekers the paint issue is no issue in my opinion AT ALL as well as the autonomy. Body autonomy can be seen right or wrong plus we have no idea the position Christ would have been in during the event. Angels are EVERYTHING. Thank for the response

@@metaldisciple Yeah, for me personally the anatomical inaccuracies are my weakest issue, it's why I had so many medical experts on my show- including Joe Bergeron who showed up in the Live chat yesterday. That said, the medical experts don't share Falk's views on the inaccuracies and/or where they do, the issues are usually explainable due to the condition of the photo not the Shroud like with the light bands around his face- Barrie explained that was simply a photo problem not on the Shroud, or due to the treatment and position of the cloth and/or is explainable by the image forming process in some way. So there are so many naturalistic assumptions at play when making these kind of non-expert eyeball judgements about the Shroud Man's anatomy based on photographs of it.

You are most welcome Metal :)

That is a good point on the $1 million dollar prize, I should have mentioned that on the show but didn't think of it, but since Falk is taking on the expense to do his experiments anyways, I will suggest that he submit the results to David Rolfe for scrutiny and a possible cash prize there for sure :)

You did a good interview brother, thanks for getting Falk on record. I look forward to hearing the experts weigh in. I’ll give him this, he would make a spectacular attorney.

@@redeemedchannel5580 Thanks Redeemed, yeah I'm typing up all the objections for them to respond to as we speak, so I look forward to seeing what they say as well :)

Image formation is exactly the reason I don't think the shroud is the thing. Nobody has replicated the image by wrapping it to a body but can easily be replicated when treated as a photograph. If the image is Jesus', the shroud was definitely not wrapped at him when the photograph got captured. Basically my argument is that if it was wrapped, the image would warp. But since the image did not warp, the shrould was not wrapped.

@@retrictumrectus1010 Thanks for your thoughts as this is obviously a problem that Pro-Shroud guys have known about for quite some time since the wrap around horizontal distortions or warp-around effect has been known about for some time- indeed this is how we rule out all natural mechanisms involving a dead body and the Shroud wrapped around it as the mechanism. But this is not a problem at all for supernatural radiation theories which posit a vertically collimated radiation burst for example- we can easily account for this fact without any issue whatsoever unless you simply object to miracles in principle of course. See Nuclear Engineer Bob Rucker's paper called, "Paper 39 "Evaluation of Hypotheses for Image Formation on the Shroud of Turin" by Robert A. Rucker, July 8, 2024" from = www.shroudresearch.net/research.html . I think you'll quickly see that his scientific hypothesis is rigorous and accounts for all the data from the Shroud images. Sorry also see these papers from the same website = Paper 35 “Nuclear Analysis of the Shroud of Turin” by Robert A. Rucker, July 24, 2023, revised October 28, 2023 ; Paper 34 “Hypothesis for Image Formation on the Shroud of Turin” by Robert A. Rucker, July 24, 2023, revised January 19, 2024 ; Paper 33 “Solving the Carbon Dating Problem for the Shroud of Turin” by Robert A. Rucker, July 12, 2022, revised October 28, 2023

Yes I cover this issue in multiple shows on my end. The Shroud Man is about 5 foot 9 inches or 5 foot 10 inches according to most experts and this is consistent with bones that have been discovered in Galilee and corresponds well with the ancient Jewish average male height of 4 ells as described n early Rabbinic literature from around the time. The hair is shoulder length which is not considered long at all at the time, so Jesus' hair perfectly fits jews for the time on the Shroud.

@@RealSeekers thanks Dale!

@@RealSeekers is there any videos in particular where you discus it. Don’t worry if it’s too much work to find

@@metaldisciple I cover the height in Shroud solo show Part 3, also in Oakwood Bible study Part 4 on Refuting the Skeptics and I also cover it in my Panel Review Part 6 whereby even Hugh admits the Shroud man's height and long hair neither proves nor disproves it's historical authenticity as people come in all shapes and sizes- around the 45 min mark for Hugh there. Also see my many scholarly sources on the Long hair issue in "D) DOES LONG HAIR RULE OUT THE SHROUD MAN AS JESUS;D) DOES LONG HAIR RULE OUT THE SHROUD MAN AS JESUS" of my Blog for Panel Review Part 6 = realseekerministries.wordpress.com/2023/04/29/shroud-wars-panel-review-part-6-historical-anatomical-authenticity/

@@RealSeekers hero! Thanks pal

Thanks Sole Knight appreciate your feedback. You are right that I need to and have stopped thinking of Hugh as a friend here esp. as he has yet to put up the Disclaimer on his blog- regardless of his intent, what he wrote clearly implies that he is saying I'm a liar and a purposeful deceiver and so he needs to address that via the Disclaimer if he ever want same to accept his repentance. I'm also taking steps to ensure much more independence form Hugh going forward in terms of shows and no longer giving him an open invitation to all the shows that I do. That said, there may be times when I need Hugh on and when that arises then I will do so albeit I now see that need will be much rarer than it has been in the past- for example, when I do the show on his own image forming theory, to have the skeptic willing and able to defend his own theory and my not inviting him on I think will hurt the cause of Pro-Shroud research, I feel I need to get over my personal grievance and put Shroud studies above that so people can see that Hugh Farey's image forming hypothesis has been defeated fair and square and not done behind his back where he wasn't given an opportunity to defend it. However, I have about 4-5 Shroud shows planned for the near future- as a friend, Hugh would have been invited to nearly all of them but given his behaviour and treatment of me and the fact I don't really see any need for Hugh on them, he will NOT be invited to participate in those at this time as I think the shows don't need him or won't esp. benefit from his presence. So he has now lost those opportunities to get his side of things out there on my channel in punishment for his sins against me.

​@@RealSeekers I think that is a brilliant and fair minded position. Yes, Hugh needs to be out in the cold for a while. Do you think Jesus would have put up with his b**ls***? I genuinely think that the skeptics side is breaking down now. And the fact you feel the need to keep Hugh 'on board' is testimony to that. With all the masses of evidence, the tremendous site that Barrie (a fellow Jew of mine!) left us with, G-d rest his soul, and now this recent X-ray dating evidence, I have finally come to the point where there is no doubt left. The shroud is genuine. I hope Hugh learns from this and he should feel VERY lucky that he does not have someone (like me) who would have had a team of lawyers biting down hard on his ass right now. God bless.

I think that is a brilliant and fair minded position. Yes, Hugh needs to be out in the cold for a while. Do you think Jesus would have put up with his b**ls***? I genuinely think that the skeptics side is breaking down now. And the fact you feel the need to keep Hugh 'on board' is testimony to that. With all the masses of evidence, the tremendous site that Barrie (a fellow Jew of mine!) left us with, G-d rest his soul, and now this recent X-ray dating evidence, I have finally come to the point where there is no doubt left. The shroud is genuine. I hope Hugh learns from this and he should feel VERY lucky that he does not have someone else (like me) who would have had a team of lawyers biting down hard on him hard right now. God bless.

@@RealSeekers A great fair minded response Dale. My replies won't post for some reason I so shall have to leave it there! God bless

@@soleknight3212 Thanks my friend :)

Thanks. Yes, I think he goes into a lot greater detail on the WAXS dating technique and while I don't think all his criticisms are persuasive there are a few that cause me to have some doubts as well even as a Pro-Shroud proponent. That said, I'm going to be having two of the authors of the paper (Giulio Fanti and Liberato De Caro) and Michael Kowalski from the BSTS responding Falk's criticisms but they aren't available until mid October so I need to wait. Meantime, I'm hosting David Falk himself to discuss the Shroud evidence for and against ore generally this Thursday.

@@RealSeekers great I will listen! Thanks

@@Frienddogs17 Awesome :)

Lol- he will be on this Thursday speaking about his take on the Shroud in general on a variety of issues

@@RealSeekers good stuff, ur the man!

@@metaldisciple Thanks, I noticed Hugh has written not one, not two but three more Blogs attacking me, with two of them being password protected so I can't see what he says about me- very weird, I wonder what he is afraid of. One thing is for sure, the one he makes public is a real doozy, advocating for a very childish notion of silence implies consent type deal from the medieval and Renaissance court system; I'm glad more sophisticated people like myself who have created our modern court system don't think this irrationally or else we would have a lot more innocent people sitting in jail when they attempted to remain silent.

@@RealSeekers he argued like an atheist. He should apply his standards to his faith and see where it takes him. If he apologises that’s great but don’t sweat it too much. We know who is in the right ;)

@@metaldisciple Yeah I hear you and totally agree.

You are welcome :)

That one is next lol

Absolutely, I didn't want to probe too hard here in this episode as I know the Shroud was totally new for Richard.

Thanks Teddi, I hear you and it seems I have gotten a lot of feedback supporting your view that Hugh is more trouble than he is worth when I bring him on the shows. And I do see merit now that he is very manipulative and selective in how he presents objections to the Pro-Shroud side at times (he did it to Giulio here as you and Paul mention and to me in his deceitful Blogs about me whereby those ignorant of the Shroud would be confused or caused to doubt the integrity and well-founded claims of the Pro-Shroud side). Personally, I think Hugh feels threatened as of late with me getting so much attention and our request for Nature to retract the C-14 paper and now everyone in the world believes the Shroud is authentic b/c of the WAXS study now making the rounds in pop culture, I suspect he feels he has no choice but to resort to such petty tactics to keep influence on people perhaps. That said, on the overall value of having Hugh on the show, I do disagree, I personally benefitted from having him on, contrary to his intentions, he helped fortify and strengthen my faith in the Shroud's authenticity through the times even he, as a skeptic, would affirm certain truths- so I do think there is something to be said about the criterion for truth from enemy attestation whereby if your enemy admits something good about his opponent it is more likely to be true; so I personally do see great value in having Hugh on the show despite how much I want to say otherwise for personal reasons right now. One thing is certain, unless and until Hugh repents and puts the disclaimer on his Blog, I do not trust Hugh as a friend and as a result he won't be given all the free publicity and opportunities I gave him to be on my show going forward- where I invited him to virtually anything and everything I was doing on the Shroud as a friend and where I even tried to help him by inviting him on to debate the Resurrection with the Atheist Ben Watkins to prove he wasn't a fake Christian as so many Shroud experts who know him well from SSG suspect he may be; heck, even I am now starting to question his faith at this point on my end. Obviously, Hugh is one of the only well-informed Shroud skeptics who is actually willing to debate with Pro-Shroud experts and that does give him some leverage in that there are times when I still think I need him, but I will be more mindful of utilizing other possible options for substantive debate whenever possible now- for example, I don't really see a need for Hugh in the Jack Markwardt series (unless Jack wants Hugh to be there) as he mostly just sits there listening to Jack present anyways and then writes his criticisms in his blog after the fact. On the other hand, I have one last Panel show to do on Image formation which is on the Powder-Rubbing mechanisms of Garlaschelli/Nickell and then Hugh's own image forming theory- I could not invite Hugh to this out of personal spite and anger, but as I reflect on this it seems wrong to me as, for once, I would have access to the actual Shroud skeptic whose theory we were assessing- a part of me feels I owe it to the audience who depend on me to present both sides to rise above my own personal grievances and just have Hugh on that show as a mere Professional relationship- otherwise, I'm depriving my audience and future generations who depend on me presenting the experts on both sides presenting their best cases. If I do a show attacking Hugh's image formation theory knowing he would have been willing to come on to defend it against it's attackers, then a part of me feels like I would be a hypocrite and trying to hide or manipulate my shows to hide experts and information coming from the other side of the debate. So, that is my quandary right now as I work out what the best thing to do is with my show going forward if that makes sense- again I fully understand you and others on here who want to say good riddance to someone who keeps using petty manipulative tactics to argue against God's truth about the Shroud, but I also think of other fans like Daniel Lowry, Richard Hunter (skeptic) and others who enjoy that I'm the only Podcast presenting both sides of the debate. To my mind, if Hugh, with his informative even if at times manipulative arguments against the Shroud is the best the other side can do, then I feel that can strengthen the case for any and all Real Seekers willing to go beyond just blindly believing whatever Hugh might say on a show; I get that most people are not Real Seekers to begin with and so they will just blindly follow any and all talking points they pick up from Hugh, but those people were going to be that way regardless, just as I'm sure there are some on the Pro-Shroud side doing the same as well out there but as the host, my concern and my ministry has always been for the Real Seekers- people who are really seeking God's truth and want to do their best to find it using my show and going beyond it as well.

Hi, Dale, Look, here's the problem --and this really is a serious problem with a live debate format when the two combatants are not relatively equally knowledgeable and prepared to handle a particular issue. It makes it REALLY, REALLY easy for a party to the debate to be ambushed by a false statement or a statement that might only be partially true --and totally irrelevant if one does not know enough about (1) the precise subject being discussed and (2) enough knowledge about the subject on a much broader level so that one can readily debunk in real-time false statements. Hugh is an absolute MASTER at engaging in this style of tactic! It works really, really well for him, because he almost never has his wild statements debunked during the debate in real-time, because his opponent often is caught off-guard and has no idea how to rebut his claim/attack! What Hugh does is he gives you enough "crumbs" with sometimes giving you "enemy attestation" on a particular topic --but then he knocks people over the head with a cinderblock when he makes allegations (which his authenticist combatant does not know how to refute) which often turn out to be, at best, half-true, and NOT DAMAGING to the evidence that supports the Shroud's authenticity. So, please tell me, if we are trying to argue that the moon is made from green cheese, if I give you some evidence that it is not, and Hugh gives you some evidence that it is, does it matter that Hugh agrees with some of my evidence if I cannot refute his attacks which might --on their own (or in conjunction with some of his other attacks) creates a "check-mate" situation for his opponent. I give you an example. When I debated Hugh during Easter Week of 2020 --this was when I was just at the very beginning of my really deep-dive into studying the Shroud, and this is before I was even in the Shroud Science Group. Anyhow, Hugh and I were discussing the issue of the claimed fluorescing serum halos, and I'll paraphrase from memory what was said --but people can go back and listen to it on that debate if they want to verify what I say here. Hugh mentioned that lemon juice put into blood (as an anti-coagulant) can cause a fluorescing halo around the blood when viewed under UV light. I responded: but, lemon juice does not contain serum albumin --which was detected in even the invisible halos (under UV light) of the scourge wounds. And, Hugh retorted with: well, you know what else has albumin in it . . . And I said, well, eggs do, and then I said that I'm confident that the albumin in eggs is not chemically the same as serum albumin. Hugh (as a former middle school science teacher) outright denied this and stated with with total certainty that I was wrong, and (being caught off-guard with this whole side-issue that had now been created), I kept saying (intuitively) that I couldn't imagine that serum albumin (which is spelled with an "I") is chemically the same as the albumen (spelled with an "e") from an egg. Hugh INSISTED that is was! Well, my background is not in science, and I had not specifically investigated this issue at the time --as I had not previously heard about it at the time-- and so I was AMBUSHED with this! Well, as soon as we finished the debate, I went to check on the internet to see if I was right or if Hugh was right. Well, Hugh was dead wrong. The protein in eggs is called "ovalbumin," and it is NOT chemically the same as serum albumin! I, then, put in the comment section to that debate my findings --to correct the record on Hugh's deceptive or ignorant claim. But, Hugh also has a pattern and practice of often stating things with total confidence and certainty that (I later find out when I investigate his claims) are WRONG. There is often a part-truth involved, but it ends up being WRONG --so, he ends up deceiving unsuspecting people who are unwilling to spend the time to fact-check his claims! So, you think that putting on someone who has a pattern and practice of confusing and deceiving people is a good idea and a net benefit for your audience??? Does having a debate with Hugh make for great entertainment? Yeah, you betcha! He is very smart and can be fun to discuss matters with, because he is a THINKER and a RESEARCHER! And, when he and I have discussed scientific matters that do not directly impinge upon the Shroud's authenticity, I see the good science teacher that I think his students had the pleasure of learning a lot from. But, Hugh is an active opponent to the Shroud's authenticity --it's his reason d'être-- and he puts his talents to use for Dark purposes. When one thinks about what it is that motivates many Shroud scholars to devote so much time --often, their life-- to Shroud scholarship, one must realize that Hugh is doing this, also --but in opposition to the Shroud. So, pray-tell, what do you suspect motivates Hugh to do this? God? No, definitely not. Money? No, definitely not. Fame and attention --maybe that's a part of it. But, think about it. Something much bigger and more dangerous is at play, because the Holy Shroud evidence (that contains evidence of Jesus' Resurrection) is like a portal that can direct nonbelievers to Christ for their salvation. Tell me, WHO would want to interfere with that, and --most importantly-- WHY? And, I always give the Devil his due. Hugh is very smart, very clever and he prepares heavily for these debates that he is on. Unfortunately, sometimes Shroud scholars go into these "panel discussions" (and it's even worse when there are several up against just one skeptic (Hugh) without a lot of preparation --just relying upon their general, popular-level knowledge about a topic that is being handled (which is not in a part of their specialty in terms of Shroud scholarship.) Hugh then makes some wild claim, and the Shroud scholar/s are just caught like deer in the headlights! Now, I don't really care if Hugh gives some crumbs here and there in the form of enemy attestation --sometimes these "gotcha" moments are enough to create doubt in people who do not know enough about the Shroud evidence --or, they don't understand how Hugh operates --and so it's not just skeptics who might not come to Christ via the Shroud evidence that Hugh scores a win with. No, there are people who might already think that the Shroud is authentic and, upon hearing Hugh's claims, might now start to doubt the Shroud's authenticity --or become transformed into skeptics, themselves. Look at what Colin Berry and Hugh helped to create with Dan Porter --who, as he, himself, will admit --was once a strong supporter of the Shroud's authenticity. And, once people go from believing something and then feel that they were duped, it is almost an impossibility to get them to "see the light" that their first position was, in fact, the right one. Once people go to the Dark Side, they rarely even have the openness, desire or willingness to come back to the side of Truth and Light. This can be seen, quite commonly, with Christians who became atheists in their more mature adult years (not when they were wet-behind-the-ears "adults" in college.). There is just almost no evidence that one can give them to change their mind --it's what is called "invincible ignorance." Plus, they often have a psychological motivation for not wanting to go back to the restrictions to one's lifestyle choices that are part of being a Christian who is not in opposition to God. So, there is that, as well. Anyhow, I've said my peace. Best regards, Teddi

Not sure why my comment has a bunch of lines crossed through it --that's not my doing. I've seen that before --seems like a strange computer quirk.

@@theodoraa.pappas3109 You must have activated the strike through command or something

I had encounters with the infamous Mr. Farey on the late Catholic Answers Forum, and my experience in that regard confirms every negative comment about him. His condescension was so thick that you could cut it with a knife. I also suspected that Hugh was employing alternate identities to ask him leading questions and fawn over his answers on CAF

I agree Paul, the things he says are manipulative and I think that is why Giulio was aggravated, but things like that bed sheet thing whereby by hand selecting some fibers from a modern bed sheet he'd be able to get a 2000 year old date or some such was pretty eye-rolling there, I let it go in the past as I just thought it was part of the being entertainment and using good faith rhetorical wit to make a point, but I realize now that Hugh does not allow for the same charity for myself or others on the Pro-Shroud side, so why should I with him. Thanks for the best wishes, yeah I honestly don't understand Hugh's mindset in wanting to single me out as he did and what's more not simply clarifying that he didn't mean to imply that I'm a liar or dishonest or a fake Christian- that was all I was asking for, I didn't demand he alter or retract his Blog because there is at least some genuine true corrections in there as was revealed in the 2nd half of this show. But yeah, I'm having to do a lot of hard thinking right now.

@@RealSeekers in the winter 2023 BSTS newsletter, Barrie wrote his final piece for them entitled “Enough”! He was sick of the derogatory remarks made against STURP scientists, claiming they were pseudo scientists. He told me he was angry and just wanted to get it off his chest before his “time was up”. It seems to be the way with many sceptics . Bill Meachem noted this with Nicolotti, describing his Paper on the Flagrum as academically very professional but ruined with bias and conceit. Secondo Pia had many years of this before Enrie confirmed his photography. Yves DeLage was ridiculed. In Hugh’s medieval shroud paper he describes the image as pareidolia as though it’s the face of Jesus on a piece of toast! Crazy.

@@paulbishop940 Yeah, there does seem to be this trend with skeptics for some reason where most of them have to resort to those kinds of tactics- Walter McCrone and Harry Gove come across as very condescending and belittling in what they write and I loathe people like that as you can tell from my shows where I speak of them. That said, I will say that as Christians it is important to remember they are all made in God Image and loved by God and I've got to love them too even though that is something I struggle with at times on my end. The only thing with Hugh is that it is a little different here in that it almost seems like friendly fire which I wasn't expecting, at least I have my guard up as it were when reading McCrone or Gove or Nicholetti, etc.

You're welcome for the show. I disagree on the disrespectful aspect and I doubt Shabir felt disrespected on his end- it may just be a cultural or maybe religious? thing (not sure if in Islam its disrespectful to call a teacher/elder by their name), but I consider Shabir a friend who've I known for years, so I just naturally refer to people by the first names esp. when I know them. Most scholars prefer to be called by their names, but yeah if Shabir or any other guest tells me they wish to be called by something specific then of course I will do so.

NO, oh my gosh are you that....???? YEESHUAH????? YOSHUA????????? For His FAMILY??????????? And you misspelled, it is CHRESTUS, and the name CHRESTUS is NOT a family name, and since this one individual they call Chrestus is written about, there have been no other men called that in history, just one, why the he... would the Romans be making an issue out of one man? It was the CHRISTIANS they called criminals, because it was illegal by the Roman leaders, just like the Jewish ones, to be a Christian. We have "Roman GREEK" writing? What is a Roman Greek and what is Roman Greek writing? The Romans were Roman Greek or the Greeks were Roman Greek? Roman Greek...Roman Greek...... When we say Greco-Roman, we know it means the two separate groups that we have united by a hyphen, because we recognize two separate groups. It is the combining of the individual groups as influences, that we have Greco-Roman anything. Greeks and Romans are two separate groups.

Thanks for your take :)

LOL- I just had to sneak at least one in there :)

That was Michael Brown not Michael Licona (not Lacona lol), but yeah it was terrible what bullies these Lefty loons are, but that is interesting I hadn't heard of Kenneth before. If you like this topic, I have rescheduled with Dr. Rodseth to do the show today at 2 pm EST again- so hopefully it goes through this time with him as an expert.

@@RealSeekersoh you would love zucker. he’s the biggest name in conversion therapy

I think it probably is Metal, but Hugh and the skeptics do raise a valid objection about the novelty of the technique. Nonetheless, I honestly do think that when the shoe is on the other foot, the skeptics would likewise accept the WAXS method if it proved a medieval date or at least most of them would (Jordan from Reason to Doubt would probably be consistent I think). That said, despite some of the objections for me the clincher is all 4 of Fanti's dating techniques combined all overlapping over the first century- if they are all erroneous methods, it is too coincidental to my mind that they all erred on the first century- that is the main argument that has me leaning, even if only leaning ever so slightly in favour of believing the WAXS method at this time instead of staying Agnostic and waiting for further testing as Hugh and Jordan would advocate for. The only way to explain this is to accuse Fanti of fraud or fudging the data to get those over-lapping results and while it is plausible that anyone could be lying or fudging data as the C-14 guys did, I know Fanti personally to some degree at least and I know others who know Fanti really well and I just find it improbable that he'd purposefully commit some kind of fraud.

@@RealSeekers thank you Dale!

You are most welcome my friend, it means a lot to me that these shows help provide the needed details for people :)

You may well be right on this front. I did note a kind of vibe or panic in Hugh when we were trying to get the petition signed against the Nature C-14 paper and so it may be he realizes that people are being convinced through my presentation to Oakwood and wants to attack it.

Thanks Ty I appreciate your thoughts there, it is interesting that you got that vibe there. I admit I never did get this vibe myself until now, so it is a little eye opening and I'm still holding out hope that Hugh will repent and this is just a mix up somehow.

It seems more and more like you may be right about Hugh, still no disclaimer on his Blog nor any word by email from him trying to correct his mistake. It honestly seems like Hugh is more eager to defend Atheists who provably lied and deceived people about the Shroud than to tell the truth about me as an apparent brother in Christ. I meant what I said about being open to reconciling with him, I'm still hoping he will come to his senses and repent via posting the Disclaimer, but the more time goes by the more unlikely it seems he will do the right thing. At this point, I really am starting to question everything I thought I knew about him and his integrity but I'm trying my best to be patient in case maybe he is thinking things through. But yeah, I will admit that Hugh does become rather emotional when something threatens the Shroud skeptical case, the first time I noticed this about him is when I had Guy Powell on to retract the Nature paper, he seemed really hostile towards the idea that he could no longer cite this paper as evidence for the Shroud being a fake and so I have no doubt the fist century dating gaining attention in the news in the UK would also affect him emotionally as well- it is almost as though he has some kind of personal stake in proving the Shroud fake for some reason which I was just completely oblivious to all this time.

He truly was not a good person as Hugh would have us believe. I was just gong over some of Joe' s research on Walter and Harry Gove- these guys were the very definition of biased.

That is very true, I didn't even think of that verse there. I'm still hopeful Hugh will repent, I'm not asking for much on my end, but you're right, if he digs in his heels here, the Bible is clear on the course of action I must take- thanks for reminding of God's Word on this front.

@@RealSeekers Absolutely! and on a tangent: have you been keeping up to date on the dating techniques that Fanti invented? Have they been independently verified to be accurate ways of dating by any other qualified secular scientists? I'd keep up to date myself but I don't know where to look for such information and figured that you're better situated to receive that kind of information.

@@fyrerayne8882 Not to my knowledge, I think Fanti is the only one that has used them, though I remember something on SSG about possible further testing but I don't remember what that was about and even if I did I couldn't talk about it until it went public anyways. But yeah, I'm not aware of anything specific on that front.

@@RealSeekers Right on. I'm eager for some independent verification of his methods!

Thank you so much Kevin, I always remember when you said this to me once before in the past and it meant a lot to me at the time esp. as you are a Shroud skeptic and agnostic, so to this day I always think of skeptics like you when I'm making shows and something comes up whereby I have to be honest even if inconvenient for what I believe to be true. But thanks for saying this, it does honestly surprise me to see Hugh of all people accusing me in this way. He says it wasn't his intention to say this about me and fair enough, just put a clarifying disclaimer on your Blogs and we should be good- I don't know why he is refusing to do it.

I assume you are talking about the WAXS dating, yeah I'm on board with it myself, I do think Fanti's dating techniques can be used to date the Shroud as they worked on the control samples and got the correct dates there. Another issue is that a couple of the dating methods aren't in peer-review journals. Obviously, the main issue is the fact that the methods are novel and haven't been vetted in secular archeology. But for me the fact it worked on the controls and the other methods all align to the first century that leads me to believe there is something to this line of evidence- I think it is more probable than not the Shroud is first century based on these methods, but its only slightly more probable than not until further testing can validate these new methods.

@@RealSeekers oh ok. I thought it was debunked by Hugh stating the way he dated it was biased and in the samples he wanted it to be on

@@metaldisciple Hugh and others have provided their critiques of it. I'm still not ready to dismiss the methods until further testing is done on them and the fact if they are erroneous then why do they all agree with each other instead of providing random dates- the only other option is some kind of fraud on Fanti's part, but that is not something I think is plausible.

@@RealSeekers I’m pretty sure he said something on the lines of “if you keep testing something you can test it as much as you want until you get the dates you are happy with” but yes I would agree this is just claiming they are a liar

@@RealSeekers Hugh disputes the validity of this new data, yet considers the 1988 c14 test as sacrosanct despite the Casabianca raw data showing the 1260-1390 date to be completely unreliable, but also neglecting the point that the raw data shows a slope in the data which supports the Rucker theory.

I'm sorry too, I pray that Hugh does the right thing as the Shroud Panels really benefit from having him on the show to provide the skeptical side of things.

Hopefully he'll repent ​@RealSeekers

@@adamclark1972uk I agree Adam, we can pray for him.

". . . .reason to differentiate it from the surrounding cloth." According to Dr. Flury-Lemberg, this area has some greasy dirt but is otherwise a continous part of the Shroud. Textile expert Gabiel Vial also said that the location of the 1988 radiocarbon sample was a continous part of the cloth. Correct me if I am wrong, but to the best of my knowledge no textile scientist who has examined the Shroud in person has claimed that a secret repair exists anywhere on the Shroud or that the 1988 radiocarbon sample was not taken from the Shroud's ancient cloth. As for our friend, Mr. Farey, I had extensive conversations with the man on the late Catholic Answers forum, and I found him to be evasive, disingenuous, condescending, and deliberately misleading. I suspected that he was using alternate identities to promote his agenda. Mr. Farey may be likable enough person and someone whom you might like to meet at a pub for a draft. But in any discussion about the Shroud, I would not give this man so much as the time of day.

That is interesting Troy, another thing I noticed is that the trogo term apparently used to refer to cows and those that chew grass or something which doesn't apply to eating flesh like a carnivore, I saw some Roman Catholics try to say that because they chew bread then this qualifies or something like that- I didn't buy it on my end. But yeah, I think you raise some very good points here for sure, ones I didn't think of myself :)

I think Phil would argue that water here is symbolic representing a natural birth not literally referring to amniotic fluid per se, but its contrasting natural birth (being born as a "natural man" vs. spiritual birth/spiritual man. But yeah, if Phil sees this he can answer for himself.

@@RealSeekers Even if it is natural birth - doesn't it mean that only those who have experienced a natural birth can enter the Kingdom of God? And, doesn't that eliminate Adam, Eve and children who die in the womb? None of these experienced natural birth and so don't seem to meet the conditions laid down in the text.

@@brianbeddor9124 Yes Adam and Eve would be exceptions and thus irrelevant to this verse which Luis argues is not meant to be literally universal but just a generalization of the normal circumstances- I'd say most men have a natural birth in that they inherit a sin nature whereas Adam and Eve acquired it and Jesus never had it with his extraordinary exceptional birth or rather conception. So, you can appeal to exceptions but those don't disprove the general rule anymore than pointing to an exception disproves the Catholic view about the general rule of faith there on water baptism. Would you agree, Adam and Eve were not "natural humans" in the sinful sense that Paul uses the term until after they Fell and are thus irrelevant. What about Jesus he was born (though not conceived) in the normal way but he wasn't a "natural man" as he had no sin nature due to being born of a virgin. I don't think Jesus means to imply a universal rule that would be disproven by his own very existence.

​@@RealSeekers I don't remember the passage of St. Paul talking about "natural humans" - would you share where that is? Jesus said: "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God." (ESV; Jn 3:5) What exceptions? Are you just assuming that Adam, Eve, children who died before birth, etc. are exceptions? Or are the exceptions listed somewhere? You seem to be saying that "born of water" means having a sin nature. Is that right? So, would you understand Jesus to be saying "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one has a sin nature and is born of the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God"? Would you give a few examples of who would not be able to enter the kingdom of God because they were not "born of water"? Maybe some examples might help me. I don't think Jesus not having a sin nature was due to His being born of a virgin. I suspect Jesus' lack of a sin nature is more due to His being the all-Good God. Thanks for the feedback and sharing your understand of what this passage means.

@@brianbeddor9124 It's in 1 Corinthians 2 and Romans 8. Could be for sure in terms of sin nature = born of water, but instead it is natural birth that entails one having a sin nature that is meant- natural vs. spiritual birth.

Glad you liked it Metal, I thought it was a great show too on my end as a lot of it was new info for me too :)

Oh wow, that makes sense there Mr. Jety I think you are right, I knew there was a difference, but I couldn't put my finger on what it was.

@@RealSeekers I think it was Kevin Zadai who explained this in one of his talks... or possibly Derek Prince. Derek is teaching the bible as if it was a logician's textbook. They both have their youtube channels that are actively uploading

No it doesn't, it perfectly matches what Jesus said. I notice you prove 0 Scriptural proof of your claim here.

@@RealSeekers For false messiahs and false prophets will appear and perform great signs and wonders to deceive, if possible, even the elect. Matthew 24:24 The words in Greek for signs and miracles are the same ones used for the miracles performed by Jesus. Not to mention the portrayal of the magicians of Pharoah where does the text imply this or anything other than a genuine supernatural event. Deuteronomy even states that a prophet shouldn't be believed even if they come with signs and wonders if they lead you to other gods.

@@RealSeekers Paul backs this up in 2 Thessalonians 2:.9

None of these verses denies or contradicts what I said, no one denies Satan does supernatural events, such as clearly narrated in the NT itself, that simply isn't relevant to my argument as I merely deny God will not allow for supernatural Religion-Authenticating miracles- there is a key difference there.

@@RealSeekers what do you think he's doing? Is trying to convince people into idolatry aka other religions

Hi Brian, thanks for your feedback. I tend to take the anethemas seriously from the Council of Trent myself, but let's see what Luis says if he responds.

That's wonderful, I'm glad it was able to give you that closure on Barrie's status :)