Comments by "PeterC" (@peterc4082) on "We Need To Talk About This New Evidence For The Shroud of Turin" video.

  1.  @RemnantDiscipleLazzaro-Rev1217  Where did you see this? The Church actually does not forbid people from thinking that the shroud is real. But it's also not saying it is. So they disagree with you.
    19
  2. Thank you for sharing that you're an agnostic--- now I can go to bed knowing you have no bone in this 'fight'.
    13
  3. The samples were contaminated with cotton from the time the shroud was repaired in medieval France. That probably invalidates the C14 results. If this was any other scientific study there would be a need to re-run the analysis from a different region of the shroud. Now the hokus pokus about potential bias and anti-religious angle are irrelevant and don't affect the fact that the sample should be representative.
    5
  4. Actually no, it's not common apparently. Remember the usual way of killing was to break the legs and that would cause asphyxiation as the legs would be used to push up to allow for chest expansion and inhalation. But guess what, we don't have other images! Only this one.
    5
  5.  @str.77  Do you see images form on cloths nowadays? Human bodies don't leave begind images on cloths. Otherwise we'd have hospitals full of such images. Don't overthink this.
    5
  6. Fr Spitzer who has a PhD in physics thinks the shroud is 99% genuine. Metatron is a bit of a weebo and has at best a BA.
    5
  7.  @taylorlibby7642  I have an MD degree and have even taught American doctors. Spitzer has a PhD in physics at the very least. Metatron comes across as too opinionated for an intellectual. I'm sorry if you don't like my opinion. It would make Spitzer more scientifically literate than someone who studies history.
    5
  8.  @unarealtaragionevole  We have evidence that there was contamination because Raymond Rogers wrote that up, he wrote several publications about it several scientific journals. The sample was not representative and was in fact contaminated by the repair process. I think you're nitpicking here. I didn't imply there was laboratory contamination but it was contaminated nevertheless. The object which was under study was the original linen shroud and the image on it and not medieval cotton. The testing itself was not incorrect but the sampling was incorrect ergo the results are likely invalid. Also I don't think the technicians at the time knew about this because it took Rogers and several others some years to write various responses and publish their own findings. So no, the people who published the 1988 findings didn't know. It doesn't matter what Breault thinks, what matters is that the C14 testing was likely not carried out correctly, i.e. not sampled properly. Father Spitzer has stated he suspects there was some skullduggery involved in all of this. I very much doubt this priest with a PhD would openly lie in public, he and others think there was bias against the shroud being from the 1st century. If I remember correctly a reward had even been offered (of 1 million USD) to prove the shroud inauthentic. As for the testing apparently there were problems with the results too in terms of the deviations noted across the laboratories. Likewise the original data was not released for a long time despite requests to have it released. But all of this is moot. In science when we have results which could be contaminated we should redo the test and use true representative samples. Whatever this guy in the video said, and heck this is a touchy subject with people with biases on every side, peoples arguments have to stand on actual merit. As we shouldn't accuse the technologists who ran the original C14 testing of anti-shroud bias, so too we should not accuse this man of bias which would affect the matter of truth of this case.
    4
  9. You left out the fact that dead bodies crucified or not don't leave such images behind on cloth.
    4
  10.  @unarealtaragionevole  You sure write a lot of chaff. The results were likely invalid because of contamination from medieval cotton. One of the criticisms is that. The only thing you've corrected me on is Spitzer's education not being involved in physical sciences but the rest of the things you bring up are really irrelevant. The actual criticism has to be addressed and not the state of mind or motivations why some people criticise. Let's not have conspiracy theories either way. Why would someone who 'found religion' argue lies to satisfy himself? With what, to fool himself? You may as well argue that the protestants who did the testing or sample analysis were hostile to the Catholic church or Italy (as Anglos mainly did the testing) and now claim they only saw a few cotton fibers and they removed them all. The Church never said the shroud is real. Final testing from an area where the image is would help clear up any confusion or arguments about the authenticity of the shroud.
    3
  11.  @bookman7409  You do understand that the technicians who performed the C14 could have been entirely competent but the sampling strategy may have been questionable? That would call the results into question. Things like that happen all the time. For example people biopsy lesions and they don't represent the actual site of pathology or miss it and a clean diagnosis is made and the patient later dies of the illness. I've been around such mistakes myself. You assume that once 'an expert' samples something that is 100% correct correct sample and that's that. The rebuttals to this were, oh we found a few fibers and trust us that's all there was. Normally if there is any question one resamples the object and re-runs the tests. Yes sometimes we have to biopsy the patient again. The rebuttals to the contamination theory are: The invisible weaving would have been picked up by the human expert who checked the sample. Another expert said yes we found cotton but we removed it. The provenance of the samples used to argue for the contamination with medieval fibers have a provenance i.e. chain of custody which can't be proven. Well of course they don't have such a chain because fresh samples are not available. People want to trust the eyes of the expert who judged the excised sample but reject the other experts who claim their samples are authentic. The easiest thing to do is to RETEST the cloth.
    3
  12.  @mnk9073  But nobody has reproduced the shroud image though. How many such images have you seen? There are also no traces of silver on the shroud as that would have been reported on.
    3
  13. Go to bed man, and don't post while drunk.
    3
  14.  @bewawolf19  I didn't admit I am wrong because I never question Metatron's Roman and Greek information. I can't be bothered to check up on it and assume he knows what he's talking about. The term intellectual has nothing to do with intellect and you will usually find intellectuals are less sure of themselves when they speak about things or at least they know the world is often grey or their understanding is grey or there is nuance. Metatron does not come across as someone who uses much nuance. I'm sorry. And that's not to say the guy is bad, he apparently has a team of people working for him. Good. Just that this may not be his field.
    3
  15.  @bewawolf19  Saying one is an intellectual doesn't mean the other isn't but what I see of your hero, Metatron, and it's OK to have heroes, he seems to be an expert on the ancient world in the Mediterranean and even beyond, he's an expert on Japanese samurai as well. But for other things his opinion is as valid as the next guy. He also claims to speak Japanese so he's a man of many talents. And he makes videos for ordinary people. I do find him too opinionated in general but for the above things I give him a pass and assume he knows what he's talking about. Sometimes he veers into biology or medicine or even Catholic theology and I realise that he is average at best, a lay person. Man you really post a lot of chaff. Have a good day. Re-read what I said and if you disagree OK. I'm sorry to have offended your perception of your hero. Now you could say I am opinionated too. That's fine. But I don't make youtube videos where I roll my eyes, grimace and insinuate I am a sharp critical thinker and an expert on numerous topics. Unless we assume this is a comedy channel in which case, sure it's a comedy talk show channel. Have a nice day.
    3
  16.  @RustyWalker  Do bodies create images of themselves on cloth? Are morgues and hospitals full of such images? Remember the body did not decompose into the cloth.
    3
  17.  @yoeyyoey8937  Set aside God or not God. The image requires an explanation and is truly remarkable. Heck if it can be confirmed it's a medieval forgery, I want to know how and by who.
    3
  18.  @Tenebris_Sint  You're a Levite Jew now but not in the first century. I'm not an expert on Jewish customs but many experts have written about this, go and argue with them. I can't judge whether you are correct or not hence you won't convince me either way. It's also not the case that things always go as planned or always happen the same way, and it is quite possible that the body was taken down and treated well as per the gospels. I understand you have an emotional need for this not to be Jesus Christ and for Jesus Christ to be fake and hence I think there is nothing more we can say to each other.
    3
  19. Glass filters out UV. So BZZZT wrong. But Occam's Razor: how many such images do you know of which have peoples' images burned on them? There are precisely 0.
    3
  20. @captainobvious2435 There weren't that many people involved. Many scientists claim that there was a strong likelihood of contamination. And we all know people make mistakes or just process what gets put in front of them. Certainly no piece with the image was assessed by C14 dating. That should be done to lay the matter to rest once and for all.
    2
  21.  @str.77  The guy above suggest that puncturing the lung to cause a hemopneumothorax was the usual way of killing. I responded that it apparently wasn't. Breaking the legs was the usual way to make sure the person on the cross was really dead.
    2
  22.  @buckjones4901  The shroud is still owned by the Savoy family. The Church is only the caretaker but they have final say.
    2
  23.  @HREguy  I think the cloth is very remarkable and needs to be addressed for the purpose of academic certainty.
    2
  24.  @biggerdoofus  The body is dead, rigor mortis. The image can't be explained.
    2
  25.  @bewawolf19  Last point my logic was not flawed. I'm sorry. You're one of these kids who has not achieved much in his life and you need to show how someone else's logic is 'wrong', But I made no logic blunders. Now go away.
    2
  26.  @Tenebris_Sint  Are you an expert on 1st c Judaism and you can tell that happened regularly, even with Passover starting?
    2
  27.  @mariaavalon3730  Catholics believe that Christ's Body is present in the Eucharist. The Church explains these verses in a logical way. You should google that. But then I have to ask, what has that to do with the dating of the shroud? Can't you let your rabid antitheism go for a few seconds and instead focus on this or are you so triggered that you're a single topic person? Go debate theology elsewhere. Oh and if you're Muslim or Jewish, OK, that's your religion, go debate that elsewhere.
    2
  28.  @mariaavalon3730  These have all been debunked and they are materially different to what happened with Christ. But even if similar occurrences occurred how does this prove that Christ did not rise from the dead? You're pulling a kind of ad hominem fallacy. Two guys, Habermas and NT Wright wrote some good texts to rebut all your concerns.
    2
  29.  @Tenebris_Sint  Your rabbi taught you that.
    2
  30.  @mnk9073  They discovered later that the specimens were not representative of the actual image under study. The repairs were known but strange that other people had to point out that the region was not representative. I believe they verified that using some of their own samples left over from the STURP project.
    1
  31.  @bookman7409  Most of his wall of text comment goes into the psychology of the church and some of the people mentioned here. I.e. it's chaff. Most of it is conspiracy theory stuff.
    1
  32.  @unarealtaragionevole  I never claimed there were lies or deceits. My point is that that the material is contaminated with medieval material. I think you don't like the word contaminate but there's nothing ominous about using that word. There was medieval contamination of the shroud with cotton which had been weaved in. The errors are that the material was CONTAMINATED or was not representative hence the results may be biased by known organic material which differs from the material under study. It's like a crime scene. If you have other peoples' DNA there, you can't claim they are the culprit when you know they had a right to be there because they lived in the house. Now the rebuttals there are that - trust me bro we checked for contamination, we found some and we removed it or, trust me I checked for other fibers weaved in or not and nope they weren't there. But people can make mistakes and later not want to admit or maybe they were just not as thorough. The whole sample was taken from an area which had been handled and fixed and others have come forth to say that there would be cotton there. Now as to why the Church won't allow more testing - here we're going off course. As to how maybe Rogers got religion - we're also going of course. As to why protestant universities and often a naturalistic Richard Dawkins like clique may want to rubbish these results - no, that's not possible. Let's throw all the conspiracy stuff out. Point is that the material was contaminated or NOT REPRESENTATIVE (are you fine with that term) and hence C14 being the only thing which suggests this is medieval, we may have reasonable doubts about it. The Church doesn't claim the shroud is real or not real. They did allow its testing once and maybe they are happy with the medieval result. We can however say the shroud is unique and highly remarkable with many lines of evidence pointing to it being much older and its uncanny how it still eludes mass duplication utilising primitive means as as what the naturalists among us claim this was all along or some one in a billion natural phenomenon of just the right circumstances for a recently deceased body to leave such an image.
    1
  33. @captainobvious2435 You need to know that the Church doesn't own the shroud, it's owned by the Savoy family as far as I know.
    1
  34. @captainobvious2435 A new specimen or specimens need to be taken with an assured chain of custody. There won't be significant destruction.
    1
  35. @captainobvious2435 Pope is not the owner of the shroud.
    1
  36. @captainobvious2435 And also, not scientists by technologists.
    1
  37. @captainobvious2435 We don't know until we retest. Often we do retest. We don't know what the source material was. We assume it was handled correctly and was representative. You've heard of stats, nice. You're like the guy who has textbook knowledge but also little practical one to go with it.
    1
  38. @captainobvious2435 We don't know that the sample tested was not contaminated by handling/cotton. Thank you. Take a piece of the image, and assess it for contamination and then test it. You're dead set against testing because you assume the tested sample was not heavily contaminated. You're assuming and speculating. A test will be conclusive. There are many people who think a test should be redone. We're going in circles. And repeating assumptions, does not render them true.
    1
  39. @captainobvious2435 Tests need to be re-run. The data for that needs 60% contamination comes with caveats. It's simple to retest.
    1
  40. @captainobvious2435 Nothing was refuted. To refute you'd need the samples which were tested and those were consumed. You need to retest them. What's wrong with you? Why you're so defensive?
    1
  41. @captainobvious2435 The image is a photo, if that and hence it is not perfectly clear. Your objections are simply thumb sucks, I'm sorry. Either this is real or it's a forgery and does not deserve any place of rest in any church. End of story. Sorry. Send it to a museum. I like your "would have" as though you were there. Buddy you're just set on not retesting it. It will ultimately be resteted. If real it will be a remarkable thing indeed, if not real i.e, made to fool people, a fake relic, it does not deserve any veneration at all and off to the museum it goes. If it was made initially as a fake as simple art, I would say OK that's an ICON, but one does not spill blood on icons. Sorry.
    1
  42. @captainobvious2435 agreeable?
    1
  43. The image is burned on the most superficial few nanometers of the linen fibrils. It's not made by contact with a liquid as that would soak through. It's not a vapour as that would also go deeper and be more blurry. It's not painted on as no pain exists on the image. Dead bodies simply don't leave such images behind. There are no traces of strange chemicals on the image or the shroud.
    1
  44.  @mnk9073  So you're saying the image can't be detected to be formed by Silver Nitrate depite there being silver residue at the scorch marks? So the image is not made by Silver Nitrite? The silver melted and would be found at the edges of the scorch marks and not in the form of silver nitrite.
    1
  45. What are you trying to say? That people can't study this cloth to determine how it was made? It is truly remarkable indeed and all evidence points to it being from the first century as other dating tests show that and the C14 testing was not representative. Nobody is forcing you to believe this image is really Jesus Christ. Don't worry.
    1
  46.  @kowalskee360  Good that you said you're an atheist. That way we know you are better than those Christians.
    1
  47.  @biggerdoofus  Nothing. The image needs explanation. As far as we know that's the only image around.
    1
  48.  @bewawolf19  I'm sorry I attacked your hero, Metatron. There there, he's an intellectual but in his own specific field. I've watched a few Metatron's videos and I never judge his takes on the ancient world, but when he veers outside the area such as the realm of biology or medicine I do see he is out of his place often enough. This object is likely outside his sphere which includes ancient Roman and Greek history, medieval Japan and video games.
    1
  49.  @Sara-x6t3s  Say I gave two people the same set of information, one person was a high school dropout and the other had a Masters in a field which sort of disambiguated at least some of the background information and the person had previous experience with critical thinking and appraisal of likelihoods, would you claim the high school drop out's opinion was just as valid as that of the person with the Masters?
    1
  50.  @Sara-x6t3s  Keep going Anglo-Saxon.
    1
  51.  @Sara-x6t3s  On a diet currently to be healthier. no cookies for me. You can keep them.
    1
  52.  @williamberven-ph5ig  Unless one is John Ritter in 1989's Skin Deep.
    1
  53.  @mariaavalon3730  Actually there were differences. Most of those did not involve bodily resurrection and many follow Christianity in chronology ie may have copied Christianity.
    1
  54.  @mariaavalon3730  no empirical evidence except testimony.
    1
  55.  @RustyWalker  You're making that argument Rusty Walkeror should I call you Johnny Walker?
    1
  56.  @yoeyyoey8937  Roman concrete has been figured out. Stained glass windows are well known. There is only one such shroud though so it's extra remarkable. We just don't see bodies leave such images behind. If we did, nobody would care about it.
    1
  57.  @Tenebris_Sint  Ah yes, that's why I didn't want to talk to you. Because now I'm an anti-semite. But if you were a protestant then I'd have said, your minister told you or your pastor. Now see how you're not charitable? Please go away, I don't want to engage with people such as yourself who are not charitable. Good bye.
    1
  58.  @mariaavalon3730  I don't know where you get your ideas but you can find lists of these similar resurrected messiahs and you will find NONE are the same as Christ. Superficially there are some similarities but you have to remember that in terms of what people can do there are only a number of limited things which can happen. A deity can only do so many things. So superficially similar things occurring does not make them identical nor the evidence for them nor our evidence for knowing such a thing occurred supposedly. I don't know which historians or athropologists you speak about but the Bible is BIG. It has a NT and OT. In terms of the NT the Bible actually teaches history because previously historians had no idea that Pontius Pilate even existed until some years ago a stone with his name was found. I understand you have some emotional need to think Christianity is zero and you think it's all bunk because you're young and you probably cannot fathom out how people survived in the 90s without GPS or smartphones. You also have no idea how much evidence there is for major historical figures of the past. For example there is more evidence for the existence of Jesus Christ than there is for Alexander the Great or even Julius Caesar. When it comes to religion there is a sociological idea that the sciences are independent of religious belief. Science texts will not go and speak of religious teachings because it would be politically incorrect to do this, or offensive or blasphemous and so on. When it comes to Christianity it is very well documented. We have writings about the early Church and early traditions which are documented, we have archeological evidence, for example the tomb of St Peter was discovered under the Vatican some years ago. Look on YT for this video: "Jesus was NOT copied from pagan mythology (Zeitgeist REBUTTED)" because the guy goes over the different ersatz Christs amateurs bring up.
    1
  59.  @RemnantDiscipleLazzaro-Rev1217  Educate yourself mate.
    1
  60. There are three issues. 1. The sample was not representative is what the best evidence hints at. 2. Yes the fire could cause problems. 3. If the image was formed by radiation, the C14 isotope levels would possibly be affected.
    1
  61.  @str.77  True. In science we deal in probabilities and likelihoods. .
    1
  62.  @alexbarn3841  Thank you for sharing your state of mind.
    1
  63.  @geodkyt  Now you're speculating. Let's forget about Christianity and re-date the cloth and explain the image. And why do you even capitalise the cross?
    1
  64.  @geodkyt  You need to summarise your ideas into short succinct points. But you're not an expert, nor are experts even in agreement, nor do experts not change their opinions. Have a good day.
    1
  65.  @geodkyt  Dude you can believe what you wish but you're obviously not an expert and an amateur at best. It's a sign of a non expert to claim to know and dictate to others how things really are. But you're only bluffing mate. At best you read a book or two and those are usually filled with speculation. How do I know? Because I lived through some of the biggest changes on this earth, collapse of the Iron Curtain and collapse of apartheid. And the sherbet I read now from Youtube experts is unlike what I witnessed or what I found while living that world which has passed. Same with WW2. I had relatives who lived through the German occupation and when I hear big d1cks like Timothy Snyder pontificate I shake my head, because it was unlike the experience of my grandparents. There's so much chaff out there. Experts also often bluff. I am involved with some medical research and am sometimes on calls with some world class infectious diseases experts and the amount of amateurish speculation present is quite extraordinary. So mellow out a bit and don't be too sure of yourself. You probably read a book by some clown who made up half of it and embellished the rest.
    1
  66.  @geodkyt  You've added that polish that one polishes a t-rd with. One clue, how you made a claim about the character of the Romans, based on...? and relating to....? and all pure speculation. Either you copied this from someone or you synthesized it and now you want to appear smart but again, unless you make money from this professionally you're at best an amateur. How old are you? You can't be your age as in that pic and still write such things. Do you not know how the world works?
    1
  67.  @geodkyt  I don't have expertise, neither do you. But I can tell a confabulator from miles away. If you're not a professional in this, and professionals usually don't type walls of text in comboxes, you're speculating here, an amateur expert, an armchair general so to say.
    1