What I really love about Katies scripts is the fact, that she always plays along from the start, builds us up and then totally tears everything down. Brutal.
Her research is lacking the new evidence of the shroud, which is fascinating. It's been dated back to the time of Jesus. Coins on the eyes of the image are dated to the time of Pontius Pilate. High-resolution imaging has shown many details in the shroud, and the image is several images overlapping each other, indicating movement of the body as each burst of radiation emitted from the body. The scientists who have studied the shroud using this imaging technology have discovered he wasn't naked. He had the traditional undergarment made of linen, tied with a snake skin belt on him. He also had the tifilin Jewish men wear when they pray on the arm and head. There is a whole series of evidence on the shroud that places it in Israel. There is dust on the shroud from a type of lime stone that can only be found in Israel is but one. One Jewish scientist who has worked on the shroud since the 1980s believes it's authentic and has returned to practising his faith because of it. The videos of all the new evidence can be found on RU-vid
Ya know, one of the funniest things about this video: All the while that Simon was discussing the grimy details of crucifixion as a punishment, his main curse words were "jesus christ"
And suddenly i have found God our Lord and savior ( i hear Simon proclame in his finest Southern accent 😂 Good Lord, I might even be a believer, if Simon delivers the sermon..Praise the Blaze 🙏
My family has never bothered with picking out special clothes for dead family members who were being cremated. But I did have a grandmother die like two days before a cousin's wedding, and when she was buried, she was dressed in the outfit she bought for the wedding. I understand why that felt like a good thing to do.
This thread of comments went from touching to insane in just 3 comments lol. Also, I think your friend would probably have enjoyed it, even just because you didnt lol
We do still use shrouds in hospitals. When someone dies after washing and laying out the person is placed in a shroud. The shroud isn’t what most people think,however. Ours are made of the same thing as disposable hospital gowns, are really long and are open down the entire back with no closure.
Another video where I can’t tell whether Simon truly doesn’t know very basic things like what a shroud is or if he’s just really good at provoking people for comments
Always fun to see where his random gaps are. Personal favorites are when Danny referenced the Brits going through so many PMs and Simon having no idea what he meant, and the time Simon learned he could see his own nose. Talk about a blind spot. 😂
Thank you Simon and Katie for introducing me to The Measure of Things! I now know that I watched this video for over twice as long as long as Louis-Antoine's reign as King of France, or about three-and-a-half times as long as the first spacewalk.
as an artist who's particularly interested in medeival and renaissance art (especially when religious in its themes), my immediate reaction to the image of the shroud was "that shit looks like a super mid painting" tbh *edit: oh! and i believe egg whites were a relatively common additive to paints in that time period - the method being called tempera - so it doesn't seem very bewildering to me. It's been a very long time since i read on it but to my knowledge it was used for a building colour and the enhancement of pigments, especially in manuscripts and books from the medeival era
Only egg yolks are used in tempera. This is actually the reason you don't see gilding with metal in paintings after a certain period, as the yolks are not pH neutral and causes the metal layers to corrode. The predecessor to tempera, called glair, did use egg whites, which are pH neutral. It functioned as a vehicle for pigment, a clear varnish, and a glue--allowing it to be used both to paint, seal the paint, attach the thin metal sheets used for gilding in manuscript illumination, and seal the metal. It's also stupid easy to make. Get some egg whites, whip the hell out of them til they foam, and pour off the foam. That's your glair, and you can put any kind of finely crumbled thing like makeup, coffee grounds, or straight-up dirt in it to paint with! The switch to egg tempera happened because it produced much brighter and vibrant colors, compared to the very faded-looking colors produced with glare. Manuscript illumination nerd out.
@@maledictionwolf this is unironically some of the coolest stuff i've read in months. Thank you for the correction, and even more than that the science behind the technique is fascinating!
Good then you should have no problem repeating the process, that nobody else has been able to do, and winning the quite hefty reward that has been offered.
Many years ago (I think in 19982) my Religion teacher said something nobody has mentioned thus far: that the shroud is fake because if it had been laid on Jesus' face (which we assume to be in 3 dimensions!) the image of the face on the flattened out (2 dimensions) fabric would be distorted, not looking like an actual portrait. That convinced me more than pretty much any other argument. Especially coming from someone who definitely believed in Jesus.
What's up time traveller, I mean I've never seen a resurrection so I'm not sure how it all happens but your operating under the assumption that whatever caused the image radiated out in all directions which would cause the deformation you're describing but what if the body passed through the cloth would it not leave essentially a topographical map of sorts with no distortion. But I mean if you can travel back in time to today why don't you just go to the first century and tell us yourself
yeah...i mean...no...the cloth would still be able to represent a 2d image of a 3d object...it's like how paintings and drawings can represent 3d objects....
Yes, please!! I heard about this one from a couple family members and thought it couldn't be real. I thought it was just another Bigfoot offshoot. I'd love to hear both the evidence and Simon & Crew's scrutiny on it.
The easiest way to disprove this shroud is by looking at the face. The print out the face is made with a flat carving of a face. If a cloth is placed on a 3 dimensional face, the resulting print would show a distorted face, much wider than normal. As an example, take a cloth place it over your face from ear to ear, take it off and see that your ears on the cloth would be much further apart than normal.
Can confirm, back when I was playing The Sims (original) all the skins I downloaded looked nightmarishly distorted before getting wrapped around the character models.
@@tiborcsendes5269 yes I think I saw one where they used a bas-relief which as you say relatively flat, in reality an imprint off a real face would look like Stewie from Family Guy, like a rugby 🏉☺️
It looks more like a painting, or even some very early experiment at photography than the imprint from a three dimensional body. If it were directly from a body wrapped in it, we could see the side of the face and the ears, as if someone took the skin and pulled it flat from the round head.
Tbf in the UK a lot of schools are 'religious' but this is reflected in the ethos and the national curriculum is followed rather than a focus on the religion itself (I'm talking before the recent UK religious school thing; back in the 90s when Simon and I would have been at these schools 😅)
You didn't mention that if a bit of cloth layer on top of a person's body, then the image would be distorted. The face and body will look wider from the cloth laying across the body.
Yeah the face should look like as distorted as a digital texture meant to wrap around a head, it wouldn't look like looking at a 2d image of a picture of a face
Another thing I would note regarding the supposed bloodstains on the shroud is that part of the preparation for burial would involve washing the corpse, so that there would be no bloodstains on it when it was actually wrapped in the shroud to be buried.
@@lanceburke6236I thought he died after Shabbat, so they would have had about 5.5-6 days to prepare the body. Plus, you prepare the body quick to ensure it does not become too bad smelling.
The gospels confirm that Jesus’ body was not washed and anointed before He was placed in the tomb. They were in a hurry because of the Sabbath. That’s why the women were coming on the first day of the week after the Sabbath to wash and anoint His body, but He was already risen.
I think Pope Francis is really clever with his quote, it's clear his personal goal as Pope is to preach peace and kindness and acceptance, so he takes the fraudulent shroud and uses it to start a conversation about human suffering and persecution.
That's actually the most recent and compelling theory. It was originally a painting of the Fisher King repurposed to look like Jesus. They think the original image was probably accidental from a clot being laid on top of a table with a bas relief of the Fisher King. Later, somebody repainted the image to cover the Fisher King's wound by elongating the right hand. The forger also painted cartoon blood drops and had to put the nail holes through the wrists because the hands were needed to cover the incongruous groin wound of the fisher king. The Catholic church found the forger at the time it was made and got him to confess. The Church itself has never claimed the shroud is authentic and essentially admitted it was fake after the carbon dating confirmed it as medieval.
The thing about a hoax that old is that it's an interesting historical artifact despite being a hoax. Actually medieval relic trade itself is probably the most interesting thing about it - "holy" relics were sometimes almost massproduced because genuine supply obviously couldn't meet demand. A wellknown relic brought pilgrims and money, so churches competed for them and even stole them from each other.
That was what the letter from the 14th century bishop was about. It was a fake and the bishop was upset because a neighboring church was using it was a real relic to make money from pilgrims.
Something that always drove me CRAZY as a child was the idea of relics..the way Catholics treated them (and “saints”) always felt like idolatry. I know the Catholic Church has said it’s not “worship” but actually veneration. But that just feels like we’re splitting hairs. The way practitioners actually treat them.. it’s delusional to think people are not putting just as much value in them, if not more, because it’s actually some physical and not just a concept of faith. Honestly, even the pope felt weird to me.. with his fancy getup, all the weird symbolic things he wears. The gold and marble, and all the other shit the church has collected. It’s so far removed from the original intent of the Bible, if there ever was one, that it might as well be an entirely different religion. But, then again, I wasn’t raised catholic (my mother was.) My autistic brain just started poking holes in all the stories in Sunday school for as far back as my memories exist. I know it’s supposed to be symbolic, but far too many people take it as REAL, and I always felt like people were lying when they said they believed. But you are right, at this point the shroud, whoever it is, or however it was made, does have historical value at this point given its around 700 years old.
Jamaicans do the open casket too, I’m used to it, having grown up with Jamaican family in England, so it’s not just Americans that observe this tradition
The Romans of that time absolutely did nail people to crosses. They did it through the wrist. Although the Bible uses the word "hand," the Greek word that gets translated to the English word "hand" actually refers to the hand and forearm. So the idea that people got nailed to crosses through the palm of the hand just comes down to an imprecise translation.
And the fact that if a grown man was nailed through both palms, they definitely wouldn't be able to keep his upper body held up for long before the nail ripped through everything. Romans broke the legs of victims so the body would deliberately hang down and cause the diaphragm to slowly tighten. In essence, if you didn't die from shock/sepsis, you died from suffocation trying to get air into a diaphragm that couldn't expand.
0:00: 📜 The Shroud of Turin is a large piece of linen that supposedly wrapped the corpse of a man and has his image imprinted on it. 4:12: 🔍 The video discusses the Shroud of Turin and its connection to Jesus. 7:55: 🔥 The Shroud of Turin, a burial cloth believed to be Jesus', has undergone damage from a fire in 1532, resulting in symmetrical lines and triangles. 12:09: 📜 The video discusses the arguments for and against the Shroud of Turin being the actual burial cloth of Jesus. 15:59: 🔍 The Shroud of Turin is a mysterious cloth with the image of a man believed to be Jesus, but it is not definitive proof. 19:50: 🧐 The video discusses various relics associated with the Shroud of Turin, including the Sudarium of Oviedo and the Mandylion, and explores the possibility of them being connected to Jesus. 23:34: ❌ Radiocarbon dating done on the Shroud of Turin in 1988 suggests that it is unlikely to be the burial cloth of Jesus. 27:27: 🔍 The video discusses the controversy surrounding the authenticity of the Turin Shroud and the biased approach taken by some researchers. 31:30: 🔍 Researchers found no evidence of blood in the Turin child, and the blood stains on the image are not realistic. 35:40: ! The Shroud of Turin is believed to be a fake relic and has been treated as a representation of Jesus' suffering rather than a legitimate relic since the 14th century. Recap by Tammy AI
Man the audio volume difference between Simon's videos is such a wild swing. Take this video. I have to up my volume to 75% just to hear SImon clearly. Click on another of his videos and blast out my eardrums. Quickly pausing and lowering the volume to 30%. Is Jen responsible for mastering the sound?
Simon, I really love your channels. This one might be my favorite, but it's really hard to hear you speak with that particular microphone, especially when you turn your head slightly to go on tangents. I love your tangents, and I can't hear all of your brilliant comments! I know you hate the Brain Blaze mic, but I've noticed that you deliberately speak into that one and I can always hear you in those videos. Just a suggestion about using the hanging mic for this channel too--fortunately, this is the only channel I have a hard time hearing you on. Keep up the great work, and thanks for all that y'all do!
I agree. It's become harder to hear Simon on Decoding the Unknown videos, especially the recent ones; the older videos are okay. I think either Simon needs to upgrade his mic or the editor needs to increase the volume during the editing process.
As some who watches most of Simon’s videos at work with headphones, please check the volume. I just had my eardrums assaulted by an ad because the video’s volume is so low. Love y’all though!
Even as an atheist I don't think there's any sense in looking at religion from a scientific point of view. Science relies on phenomena that can be observed, whilst religion relies on faith despite the ability to observe the evidence.
My chem prof in college mentioned this. Pointed out that carbon dating may not be as accurate as believed, but that it dates to around the time of Da Vinci, and that is anyone could pull this off, it would be him
Just went through a night being taken to the hospital by ambulance and being poked and prodded, with suspicion of heart attack or something. Nothing, apparently...just pain apparently. But now recovering, feeling bruised and tired...and wanting that Starbucks on Simon's desk so bad. Thanks, mate. 😂
No, actually they didn't usually stab you. In fact it was usual for them to tie you to the cross using rope instead of nailing you there, the whole point of this sadistic method of execution is for you to essentially fry in the sun until you die of dehydration or heatstroke, whichever one comes first. Stabbing you in the side and nailing you tot he cross would technically have been an unusual kindness, allowing you to expire quicker from blood loss.
Putting you out of your misery was common though. Not by stabbing but by breaking your legs to make breathing difficult due to not being able to support your weight.
Which makes sense. Another, pretty longstanding view is that the lungs and abdomen would be filling up with fluid and suffocating the person on the cross. In theory, piercing the side might release some of this fluid and slow the suffocation process. Either way, a truly terrible, painful cruel way to die
Actually, they did use nails quite a bit and the cause of death was asphyxiation from your own body weight. The Roman's were freaking brutal. Oh yeah, the shroud is a fake it's from around the 11th or 12th centuries.
@@gloriamontgomery6900Not... quite how the draining of fluid from the lungs works. Fluid builds inside the air sacs, and in order to drain this you need to somehow pierce them all. This is why we cannot simply pump air into your lungs, and use said pressure to suck out fluid caused by pneumonia. You're attempting to pull fluid from hundreds of thousands of little, fragile sacs - not just from two hollow lungs. A puncture to the lungs would continue to allow fluid build-up of fluid, and now it would be exacerbated due to blood now also filling the punctured lung. The stab to the side was always performed just under the edge of the ribcage. Doing so punctured the diaphragm, and this would force the diaphragm to rapidly lose its ability to create negative pressure in the chest cavity. This negative pressure is what draws air into the lungs. As your now struggling breathing slows - CO² builds in your system. This build-up is not painful _(though it does cause some discomfort due to hallucinations and such),_ and you simply fall asleep in fairly short order.
One problem with the recreations is that you have to take into account that the shroud has been banging around since the 1300s. So whatever it originally looked like when freshly painted, it severely degraded by now.
Exactly! I've said the same thing in other comments. It looks so faint and spooky and ghostlike now. I think this makes it look more believable to modern eyes. But imagine what it must have looked like when the image was much brighter and clearer. It must have looked almost cartoonish.
Theres no pigmentation on it at all to make any image natural nor chemical, there aren't any evidence of brush strokes neither capillary pressure due to artwork by sponge. The image seems to transition due to the deflection of light from the molecular structure in the fabric thus it is not possible to have significant fainting or discoloration. That fabric is a scientific marvel, does not matter if its real or fake.
@@jjbiano it's the only logical explanation. There is not a single shred of evidence that this is real. So until you people can come up with proof, stop coping
On open casket funerals: I think that in some cases, it can be helpful. I was present when a high school teammate was attempted to be rescued after drowning, which was incredibly traumatic. I’m honestly so grateful that her family had an open casket funeral, because I was able to see her face one last time in a much more peaceful state. I’ve since been to funerals that involved an open casket and those that did not, and both can be very positive. While the person is gone from the body, seeing their face one last time can help through grief.
I love how Christian’s always draw and paint pictures of Jesus as a white guy from California instead of Sadaam Hussein which he probably looked a lot more like. Not a lot of blonde haired blue eyed people in the Middle East. They probably think Moses looked like Brad Pitt.
Quick reminder about the appearance of Jesus: we don't know what he looked like, exactly, but he looked so much like the people in that area at the time that he could get easily lost in a crowd and the Temple guard couldn't pick him out during his arrest.
@@frontenac5083 But, but, but Christian's love to repeat the "Fact" that ALL historians agree that Jesus was a real person who definitely existed and was crucified in Jerusalem in the first Century AD. They don't realize it's easier to say "Jesus could have possibly been a real person." Or are Christian themselves. Their is literally 0 evidence that Jesus was an actual person, and the Gospels were not just made up.
The Romans who crucified him had descriptions of him specifically being blonde which was relatively atypical of the area. We have absolutely zero additional direct statements about his race but he was likely either of a general European stock descended of Romans or was ethnically Jewish along with being religiously and culturally Jewish.
Having watched documentaries, videos, etc. I am convinced the Shroud of Turin is a cool piece of artwork. And yes Simon, when one says we need to redefine our understanding of the laws of physics, one is by definition not a scientist. 😊
The thing that always amazes me is how people in the past were so terrible at documenting things or keeping track of where they put things. I mean, if I was around at the time I would have put Jesus' burial cloth in a box, labelled it "Shroud of Turin, do not lose". I would have done the same to his cup thingy, put it in a box, label it "Holy grail, do not lose", and bam, problem solved! You've got the holy relics right there, properly stored and documented, and you don't need to mess around with any quests or anything. I mean how hard can it be??
Most cults are based around a real person, or several persons made to appear like one person. I do not think the gospels were written by a novelist lol@@katrinarose72
You should do a decoding the unknown about the Brazilian alien encounter that is honestly pretty convincing from what I have seen. Would love to hear you tell the story and hear a thought out script.
Honestly the most interesting part of the shroud is that no one seems to be able to agree how it was made. Whether that's due to an oversaturation of misinformation or genuine confusion as to how it was done I'm not sure.
It’s due to the very strong agendas and bias that everyone has going in while studying such a historical and well known object. You get a wide mix of opinions on the Mona Lisa as well.
It’s important to note that the parts of the shroud that have been given to scientists to test have only been tiny little scraps from the corner - they aren’t snipping out a chunk from the face. These tiny portions could be from an area that wasn’t painted or treated in any way, hiding the real evidence of paint or pigment.
I'm from Turin and I've seen the thing multiple times, and while it's a nice piece of artwork, it's so obviously a paint! Just look at the face, how is it that the hair is so perfectly on the sides of the face, and he surely looks oddly lanky and unnatural.
I live in Finland. People here dont talk about religion or belief very much so it sounds very secular. And it is in many aspects. But we have a state religion which im a part of. Confirmation is normal and I participated in it. My mom never talked about Jesus with me when I was a kid. So it all sounded like cultural heritage. Imagine my surprise a year ago, when I converse with my mother. I was 43 years old and talked about my thoughts on what we really know about historical Jesus and that he might not have existed. She got so uncomfortable. I don't remember the conversation exactly, but she called me evil at some point for talking about Jesus like that. I learned about Jesus in school. Not from her. Ive avoided this topic since and so has my mom. It was just a baffeling moment for me. I felt like this was thoughts of mine I should never share with my mom.
I don't know how anyone think it isn't a painting, just like the actual bishop who first wrote about it said. Just look at it. The eyes are much further up on the face than on an actual human's head, the right forearm is noticeably longer than the left forearm, the figure is taller from behind than in front, etc. It's a painting some guy made, obviously.
As a painter it really bemused me to see people put so much faith in a cloth like that. My father is adamant it is real and will get violent if you question it, but all I have to do is look at the squiggly "bloodstains" on the figure's forhead and go yeah, some dude blobbed them on lol - and that's not mentioning the image being a flat pictorial depiction rather than an actual wrapped pressing and the terrible proportions, even the fingers look like a medieval painting. The minute you're neutral about the thing, you see the holes in the believers' claims and their ability to discern truth from fiction.
From what I understand Roman’s typically nailed them through their wrists because doing it through the palms made it easier for the nails to rip through the the hands after days of hanging by them, the wrists put all the hand bones plus a lot more muscle in the way, from what I understand sometimes they just tied them, just kinda depends I guess
I once read a book that claimed the shroud was a crude photograph created by Da Vinci, and that he possibly used a bust of his own face as the model photographed. While I'm not convinced that it was a Leonardo creation, as the dates don't line up completely, the authors did recreate a similar looking image with the same negative properties using materials that would have been available in in early 15th century.
The dates could match, technically. The shroud predates Da Vinci, but if he was making a shroud that had to look 1500 years old, he would have picked the oldest linen he could find.
I always assumed it was just some kind of ancient tapestry that's super faded because it's hundreds of years old and wasn't properly stored, or stored because it was faded, then someone found it and made up a story that gained a life of its own. I remember the 1988 test. There was some big TV special about it.
Two thoughts: 1 - People can argue this is an example of a miracle. No issue there. But...by definition a miracle happens outside of nature (this the term 'supernatural') and you can't have it both ways. If it can be proven to happen within our understanding of nature or a reasonable conjecture of the same, even if by an act of God, then it is no longer a miracle. It's one or the other, it can't be both. 2 - I read a very intriguing hypothesis a few years ago that perhaps the Shroud was created by tainting the cloth with a silver compound and hanging it on a camera obscura, with a real dead body given the wounds of Christ hung outside so its image was cast onto the cloth. The cloth would them have been treated to stop the light reaction and probably washed to remove the silver compound. I was surprised this was not included in the script even if to debunk it is not only plausible but very doable with Medieval knowledge and equipment, not to mention the profiteering and hijinks of the High Middle Ages.
I suppose it's just like all the other pieces of medieval fabric we have in museums around the world, after it was created back then it was then looked after.
@commendatore2516 There are plenty of medieval fabrics similar to it, even the herringbone/chevron weave can be found across Europe and we can recreate the mistakes in the weave using specific medieval looms - there's no comparison only if you're willfully ignorant regarding history and try to believe it on face value - gullibility basically. I suspect you can hardly call up any other piece of fabric and only know this one without much education in the history of fabrics.
@commendatore2516 You can find them yourself if you do the work of contacting museums, instead of resting on any biased assumptions regarding the validity of the shroud. Are you interested in hard truths or comforting myths, you know? Plus I just asked you for one and you couldn't give it, deflecting with a question I am confident can be answered if you care to look for yourself - if brave and intellectually honest enough to do so.
Exact placement of the nails during crucifixion is subject to some debate. The most common depiction shows the nails being driven through the palms of the victim's hands, but if they were hung on the cross through nails alone, this wouldn't have been enough to support their weight, and the nail would've ripped out through the side of the palm once the cross was hosted upright. If the victim was tied to the cross as well, then the rope would keep them in place, but if it was done through nails alone, then the Shroud placing the wounds at the wrists is actually a fairly good shout. Driving the nail through the soft tissue of the arm, between the radius and ulna, would certainly work much better. It's also worth noting that, while the description of Jesus' crucifixion in the Bible most commonly translates the wound's placement as the "Hand,", the actual Greek word in the original text, "χείρ," is quite non-specific, and could refer to any part of the arm between the elbow and the fingertips. Of course, this is fairly moot, as the Shroud itself is a forgery.
there is no debate about the nails. referring only to the bible, hands translated means the region, not the specific location. Also, the debate about the feet nails as depicted in so many christian drawings and statues is totally debunked from the traditional belief of one foot over the other on a pedestal. Was nailed on the sides of the vertical beam. The two found artifacts of crucifixions show that. Nailing to the beams on the sides causes the naked condemned to be spread eagled to add to the humility of crucifixion.
@@Kangawallapossumbat Crucifixion wasn't uniform. It was an execution method practised by multiple different nations and empires across hundreds of years. Within just Rome itself, there were at least three different types of cross, _crux simplex_ (not even a cross, just a post), _crux commissa_ (with the crossbeam at the top of the vertical post), and _crux immissa_ (with the crossbeam slightly below the top, the most famous version), all of which were still considered crucifixion. We know Jesus most likely suffered the _crux immissa_ version, but the exact details of how it was performed aren't known.
1:20 - Mid roll ads 3:20 - Back to the video 4:35 - Chapter 1 - Shroud atlas ; details about the artifact itself 12:35 - Chapter 2 - A face in the shroud ; the pro jesus argument 23:15 - Chapter 3 - Far from the madding shroud ; the "it's not jesus shroud" 33:25 - Chapter 4 - Extremely shroud & incredibly close ; the turin shroud has always been a hoax - Chapter 5 - - Chapter 6 -
I heard or read somewhere that Leonardo da Vinci might have had something to do with the creation of the Shroud of Turin. It's funny that the image on the Shroud resembles Leonardo. I can imagine the genius somehow imprinting his image on the Shroud as a joke/hoax on the Catholic Church. Doesn't the historic origins of the Shroud match up with the time Leonardo lived? Or maybe not...Leonardo da Vinci (1452-1519).
How it was done: The image was painted on a pane of glass. The painting was then laid on the linen and exposed to sunlight for several years, burning the image into the cloth.
- If it’s that simple, how come experts haven’t definitively written it off yet? - The image is super thin, we’re talking like a fifth of the width of a single hair, if it was just paint that had baked on, it wouldn’t be so thin. Also, the amount of light required to produce an effect like this is MASSIVE. - Also, what an elaborate way to fake an artefact. Why would anyone do this? And how is it that many centuries later, experts have been unable to recreate the effect?
@@RedwoodTheElf that’s what I mean by ‘baking in the paint.’ - the cloth is exposed to light and heat while the painted glass is above it thus baking a pattern into the shirt from different levels of exposure. I didn’t literally mean drying and setting the paint into the shirt.
Another thing that might make it not date back to the 1st century CE: the height of the figure. According to archaeological records the average Israeli male of the 1st century CE was only 5’5” with the average Roman man being 5’6”. The figure on the shroud is between 5’7” and 6’2” which is a range from above average to quite tall in the 1st century CE. For comparison the tallest male in my family was between 6’5” to 6’8” and he lived during the late 19th century when the average height for a male was only 5’8”.
Both Matthew 26:47-50 and Mark 14:43-45 tell of Judas' kiss to tell who to arrest. So Jesus looked no different than the average Israeli men at the time and surely wasn't distinctly taller. So unless he surrounded himself with equally long people, he wasn't as massive as the depiction on the shroud.
The medieval origins of the shroud makes perfect sense .A religious establishment could make a lot of money from the owning and showing of relics at that time .There was a whole industry arounds pilgrimages ,with well known routes ,inns and monasteries that accommodated and catered for pilgrims and little badges you could buy, to show you had visited a recognised pilgrimage site or seen a particular holy relic (early souvenirs if you like )..it was BIG business .Obviously a lot of the relics were fakes and created to cash in on the pilgrimage trade ,even a small church could expect some remuneration if they could claim to own the sandal of some obscure saint that would cure boils or guard against lice .Owning the burial shroud of Christ himself would have meant big bucks if people had believed in it .
Select scientists from the National Laboratory in my home town of Los Alamos were given access to conduct tests on The Shroud. One of them gave my dad his anecdotal, rather than scientific, impression of what he thought when he first looked at it.
The whole deal about the head being raised and the knees being lifted... It put an image in my mind of how Christ is usually positioned on a crucifix. Let's imagine, some time back in the whenevers a rich family, to show how holy they are, has a lifesize statue of Christ on the Crucifix created, maybe in wood because they're not that rich. Perhaps it was shipped to them in the cloth or maybe they stored it for a while, but the wood stain stained the cloth and somebody said, "Hey, it looks like it came off of Jesus himself." They laugh, but somebody starts getting ideas. They do some clever arts and crafts then, or perhaps hide it in a cupboard for a few years. Regardless, they pull it out when the royal family comes around and say, "Yeah, this has been passed down through the family since forever. "
Oh, shame the only thing you said is wrong! Da Vinci was no genius. He was a poor painter, and... And that's it, really! One of the most overhyped people in history ever.
I don’t know how the image got on the cloth but I believe it’s fake. Just looking at the blood stains shows it’s fake. It could be real blood but it’s painted onto the cloth. Every blood mark is a perfect squiggle or dash. If it was blood from torture it would have been everywhere. Not just perfect lines
Just a lil CC.. Simon, is it possible to record your videos a little louder? I have to turn my phone all the way up to hear you, but then when an ad comes on, it's SO loud that it screams at me whilst blowing out my eardrums. Much obliged.
There's an angle on the whole thing that rarely gets brought up but it actually answers all the issues and makes the data. Specifically the image was created by Leonardo. Yes that Leonardo. Like the shroud shows a man crucified through the wrists which is how the Romans would've done it, cause doing it through the hands wouldn't work. And someone familiar with human anatomy could work this out. Such knowledge of human anatomy was very very rare back in the day. But Leonardo had it. Also as for the image? Easy way to explain why the color doesn't soak through and all the rest, it was made with a light sensitive chemical. Make a statue of a man, turn a room into a pinhole camera, soak the sheet in a suitable preparation, hang it, open the pinhole and let the fabric be exposed for a while. This was all well within Leonardo's capabilities. And since it's a negative image, if you take a photo of it, the negative will look like a positive. Just like it does with the shroud.
Considering all the different kinds of sciences Leonardo was dabbling in, he surely would've come up with some simple form of camera. His screw helicopter might not work, but the theory of how to make a rotor was there. His tank is in principle functional, same with the submarine, plane and bridge over the Bosporus.
LOL! By these standards, I'm the brilliant inventor of an intergalactic spaceship. I've just doodled one on a paper napkin. I leave the boffins to figure out the details (such as how it's built and how it works). @@HappyBeezerStudios
@@buzzvuzz yeah the shroud is mentioned before da Vinci was alive, but there's nothing attesting to the image on the shroud being there in the 1390s. At least not the image that's there now anyways.
I’ve had a joke of theory that I keep to myself. What if Jesus has come back thousands upon thousands of time? And we just kept locking up all his reincarnations for being crazy. 😂😮
