The Science of the Shroud of Turin: Unlocking the Mystery of Jesus' Resurrection

The Shroud of Turin contains mysteries that have baffled scientists for decades, offering compelling evidence for the resurrection of Jesus through radiation signatures that cannot be explained by conventional science.

• A detailed exploration of the Shroud of Turin's physical characteristics, including the negative image containing 3D information
• Scientific evidence showing the image is not a painting, scorch, liquid, or photograph as determined by the Shroud of Turin Research Project
• Explanation of how the 1988 carbon dating (suggesting 1260-1390 AD) was affected by neutron absorption from radiation
• Evidence dating the Shroud to the first century, including ancient stitching patterns and new dating methodologies
• Nuclear engineer Bob Rucker's "Vertically Collimated Radiation Burst" hypothesis explaining image formation
• Discussion on how the Shroud provides scientific evidence for dimensional transition during resurrection
• Connection between current physics theories about higher dimensions and the resurrection event
• Detailed examination of the crucifixion evidence on the Shroud, including accurate anatomical details not known in medieval times

The Shroud of Turin represents a convergence of faith and science - physical evidence of the resurrection that continues to challenge our understanding of physics and provide a powerful testimony to Jesus' victory over death.

Support the show

Watch Us On Youtube!

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:00):
So the context information for the resurrection
of Jesus.
We have Old Testamentprophecies and we have Jesus'
own predictions of his prophecythat were fulfilled.
But then there's eyewitnesstestimony Two classes there.
We have the empty tomb,testimony of the empty tomb and
testimony of Jesus'post-resurrection appearances.
But we've never had scientificevidence for his resurrection

(00:23):
before.
We only have that now with theShroud of Turin, with what we're
saying here, because of theevidence for radiation causing
the image and causing theshifting of the carbon date.

Speaker 2 (00:40):
Welcome to the Tim Allman Podcast.
It's a beautiful day to bealive, I pray.
The joy of Jesus is yours.
He is so in love with you.
He's called you, he's claimedyou in the waters of baptism and
he's invited you into theadventure of a lifetime which is
locating where he is at, in theworld, where he is at work,
drawing all people.

(01:00):
We know this connected toScripture, that God wants all
people to be saved and come to aknowledge of the truth.
The truth is Jesus, revealed inhis person and work, the
crucifixion and resurrection ofJesus, his ascension, the
descension of the Holy Spiritand his return to make all
things new.
We are wrapped up, enveloped inthe greatest love story of all

(01:23):
time, and today we get to hangout with Bob Rucker and Dr Trey
Cox and we're going to betalking about the Shroud of
Turin.
Now some opening comments frommy perspective.
Some people say why do we evenneed?
You know?
Jesus said blessed are thosewho have not seen and have yet
believed.
Right, and I believe that theeyewitness reports are enough.

(01:47):
And there are certain thingsthat are popping up today in
terms of dating of certainmaterials that were very
evidently left, the Jesus burialcloth being one of them that
are very curious, that are very,very interesting, and there are
a lot of scientists.
It's funny how science kind ofcatches up with scripture.

(02:07):
There are some scientists whoare looking at something like
the Shroud of Turin and saying,wow, we should look more deeply
at this.
And one of those scientists isBob Rucker.
Let me tell you about him and,for those of you that are on
YouTube, we actually have hisslide deck that we're going to
be following along here so youget to see.
He graduated from the Universityof Michigan nuclear engineering

(02:29):
master's.
He had 38 years in the nuclearindustry nuclear analysis,
computer calculations,statistical analysis of
measurement data Then 11 yearsnow in Shroud Research.
You can find 39 papers that hehas written at shroudresearchnet
and he's organized theInternational Conference on the
Shroud of Turin, also known asthe ICST, in 2017.

(02:54):
Our goal today is to explainthe mysteries and promote the
future testing of the Shroud ofTurin.
How you doing, bob?
Thanks for hanging with ustoday.

Speaker 1 (03:02):
I'm doing fine.
That was a wonderfulintroduction, by the way.

Speaker 2 (03:05):
Oh well, thank you.
We're going to have a greattime, so let's get into it.
What is the Shroud of Turin Bob?

Speaker 1 (03:10):
Yes, well, a shroud, of course, is a burial cloth.
Turin is a city in northwesternItaly, so when we refer to the
Shroud of Turin, what we'rereferring to is a burial cloth
that has been in Turin since1578.
We'll get into the history ofit a little bit later, but it's

(03:32):
made of a linen thread made fromthe flax plant.
There's about a hundred or morefibers in a linen thread and
it's woven into a three-to-oneherringbone weave, which would
make it very expensive.
Therefore, joseph of Arimathea,of course, was a very wealthy
man, so he could have purchasedit.
So it's about 14 feet, a littleover five inches long, three

(03:55):
feet, almost eight inches wide.
But the unique thing about thispiece of cloth it's a linen
cloth is that it contains frontand dorsal or back images of a
crucified man that was crucifiedexactly as Jesus was crucified.
So what is it?
Could it be authentic?
That's the question.

Speaker 2 (04:15):
That is the question.
Do you have any kind ofestimate on how much such a
burial cloth would have been inand what that cost would be like
in today's terms?
Bob Any idea there.

Speaker 1 (04:24):
Yeah, I really don't.
I've never heard that estimated.

Speaker 2 (04:26):
Okay, but it was expensive and it was large and
it was relatively.
I mean, it's a thick piece oflinen cloth, is that correct,
bob?

Speaker 1 (04:35):
It's about as thin as a man's t-shirt.

Speaker 2 (04:39):
Okay, so it's not exceptionally thick.

Speaker 1 (04:41):
No, it's less than a millimeter in thickness, usually
regarded as being about 0.35millimeters uh in thickness, but
it's very pliable.
Uh, it's uh.
Linen has a characteristic ofbeing highly resistant to
insects, so if kept away fromfire and moisture, it'll last

(05:01):
for thousands and thousands ofyears, which is why we have a
copy of it.
Well, we have the original.

Speaker 2 (05:07):
We have the original.

Speaker 1 (05:08):
We have the original.

Speaker 2 (05:09):
Which is mind-blowing .
So let's get into some of theimages on the Shroud of Turin.
For those that are on YouTube,you can kind of see this and
yeah, you got this.
Well, just explain it, I'mgoing to stop talking.

Speaker 1 (05:21):
Yes, first photograph was taken in 1898 by Segundapia
.
But with the unaided eye itwould look as we have on the top
image here.
There's two long scorch marksrunning horizontally on either
side of the image, but the imageis in between those scorch
marks.
On the left side is the frontimage with the feet to the left

(05:48):
and the head to the right.
On the right side is the backor dorsal image with the head to
the left and feet to the right,so it's a head-to-head image.
Now that image is a very lowcontrast so it shows up better
under photography becausephotography automatically
enhances the contrast.
So the bottom image there showsthe same, only in the camera
negative.
But it's interesting, thecamera negative turns out to be

(06:08):
a positive image, which meansthat the image on the shroud
itself is a negative image.
Now, at that point in time whenthe photograph was first taken
in 1898, they thought it must besome kind of a painting.
But an artist or a paintercould not paint what he had
never seen and he would havenever seen a negative image at

(06:29):
that point in history.
So that just threw the analysisinto disarray.
At that point they didn't knowwhat to make of it.

Speaker 2 (06:38):
It's such a.

Speaker 1 (06:49):
So every 10 years or so it might go on display a few
times.
It was on display, for example,in 1978, on the 400th
anniversary of it coming intoTurin, and so that's the
photograph that I'll show you ina little bit.

Speaker 2 (07:04):
This is unbelievable.
There's so many things aboutthis, yeah, so let's go into
detail.
On the frontal image here thisis spectacular.

Speaker 1 (07:11):
Yeah.
So on the front image here fromthe top down, we have puncture
wounds around the scalp.
We have swollen cheek and nosefrom a beating.
The nose is dislocated, not thebones broken, but the cartilage
is evidently broken.
There's a two-inch wideelliptical wound in the side,
just the size of a Romanthrusting spear, with blood and

(07:35):
a clear blood serum running down, so that the heart had already
stopped at the time that thatwound was created.
It's a post-mortem wound, sothe red blood cells were
settling out of the clear bloodserum and that's why we have the
two different components comingout of that wound.
We have the blood coming downthe arms on either side.

(07:58):
Interesting that, the blood iscoming down at two different
angles, corresponding to the twodifferent angles that are
created when the person beingcrucified pushes up and down to
breathe.
He has to push up and down,thus causing his arms to go into
two different angles.
And that's shown on the Shroudof Turin.

(08:19):
The nail is through the wrist,not through the middle of the
palm, because if it went throughthe palm there'd be no bone
structure above it.
It would simply tear out underthe weight of the body.
But in ancient times in Jewishculture, the hand went down to
the middle of the forearm sothat it, going into his wrist,

(08:41):
would be called into his handInteresting.
That nail going through thelocation just above the wrist,
at the very bottom of his palm,probably at a little bit of an
angle, would have crushed thenerve which was gathering all of
the nerves from the hand, andso it would have been extremely

(09:04):
painful.
This is where they get the termexcruciating excruciating pain,
but that would thenautomatically fold the thumbs
over.
I believe that's correct, andthat's what we see on the shroud
here.
The paintings in the MiddleAges show the nail wound through
the palm with the thumbsprominently displayed.

(09:24):
So all the paintings from theMiddle Ages get it wrong, but
the Shroud of Turin gets itright.

Speaker 2 (09:29):
So, the thumb would have been in like this.

Speaker 1 (09:31):
Yeah, yeah, so the Shroud of Turin is not from the
Middle Ages.
You can tell that just from thelocation of the nail wound and
the thumbs.

Speaker 2 (09:39):
Well, that's what you say, Bob, that this is a hoax,
right, because the original.
So get into the dating kind oftheories if you will.
It may be coming later, butlet's just like dismiss the
folks that say, hey, this isonly from a thousand years old
or something like that, ratherthan 2000,.
Roughly years old, bob.
Could you get into that a bit?

Speaker 1 (09:57):
Well, you know, I'll get into that quite a bit later,
but basically the only evidenceagainst the authenticity of the
shroud, I think or at least themain evidence is the carbon
dating, and they dated samplesfrom the corner of the shroud.
I'll show that to you.
And the answer to that carbondating, done by three different
laboratories, was that it datedfrom 1260 to 1390.

(10:20):
But it's interesting that twoof the laboratories didn't agree
with each other.
They were statisticallydifferent values, so that
something strange is going on.
Well, as it turns out, there'snot just one result from carbon
dating, there's actually four.
And this correct scientificsolution to what the data is has
to explain all four of thoseevidences, not just one.

(10:42):
We'll get into that.

Speaker 2 (10:43):
Yeah, well, yes, exactly, so keep going down.
You got scourge marks here.
Here's something wild.
So you talk about puncturewounds.
I heard recently there are.
There's a ridiculous amount ofpuncture wounds in his in his
head from the very longBethlehem type of like the crown
of thorns was very, very, very.
That would have hurtexceptionally.

(11:05):
It's they were long right.
Get into how many puncturewounds we see both in his head
as well as in the rest of hisbody from the beating.

Speaker 1 (11:13):
Well, you know, I've never heard of anyone counting
the number of wounds in thescalp, but I suppose that's
certainly possible to do.
But you know, there might be 20, 25, I would imagine, in the
scalp.

Speaker 2 (11:24):
I'd heard 30, roughly .

Speaker 1 (11:25):
Yeah, somewhere in that range, and you know I
haven't counted them, that wasjust my best guess.
But so over the whole body Ithink there's like 120 is the
usual estimate, and that's fromthe flogging.
That was done so that eachstrike, the tool there that was
used in the flogging would havehad three different leather

(11:48):
thongs coming out with a sharpor an item on the end tied into
the end that looked like aminiature dumbbell.
So it left two different markswith each stroke of the tool.
A lot of marks, a lot of marks,a lot of marks.
Interesting that we have noseand knee abrasions on one knee

(12:12):
with dirt in them, and on thetip of the nose and on one knee
there are abrasions with dirt init, consistent with one or more
falls that jesus took incarrying his cross just the
horizontal, I think didn't theydate that dirt?

Speaker 2 (12:29):
we know that dirt bob is from first century jerusalem
.

Speaker 1 (12:34):
Like it is dirt yeah, yes, yes, the components of it
are consistent with that dirtbeing from jerusalem.
Also interesting here there'sactually a side strip to this
cloth.
It's about 5.2 inches I kind offorget, or 3.2 inches wide.

(12:57):
That was evidently cut off atsome point and then sewn back on
, maybe in the company, themanufacturing company.
They actually made this pieceof cloth in the first century.
But the interesting thing isthat the sewing of that seam was
done with a stitch that'sunique, though most similar to a

(13:22):
, a stitch that was on a pieceof cloth from Masada that was
destroyed in 73 to 74 AD.
So that stitch on that seamdates this cloth to the first
century.

Speaker 2 (13:34):
That's extraordinary Frontal image.
All right, dorsal image yeah.

Speaker 1 (13:38):
So again, we have puncture wounds on the back of
the head.
Now these puncture wounds arenot just from a ringlet, as it's
commonly pictured around thehead, but it was a cap of thorns
that was then beat on with rods.
So you have these long thorns,two to two and a half inches
long, then beat into a scalp.
Extremely painful to have awound in your scalp like that,

(14:03):
and this was probably done byPontius Pilate to create
compassion amongst the people.
But they still.
How evil the people were atthat point.
They still wanted him to becrucified as well.
So he was, you know, I think,very uncommon to both scourge
and crucify a person, but thisperson was, and I believe this

(14:27):
is Jesus.
Crucify a person, but thisperson was, and I believe this
is Jesus.
So another thing to notice wasthat there were abrasions on his
shoulders consistent with himcarrying a rough, heavy object
and of course, people who readtheir Bible realize that Jesus
carried the cross and then wehave a flow of blood, and the
blood from the side wound thenflowed across the small of his

(14:47):
back and we can see that on thisdorsal or back image.
On the feet we have two nailsthrough the feet.
Well, what they did was theyput one nail through the heel of
one foot and then they took theother foot and crossed it over
top of the previous foot and putone nail through both feet.
Previous foot and put one nailthrough both feet.

(15:10):
There are two points to this.
It is that this would allow onefoot to rotate because it only
has one nail in it, consistentwith him having to push up and
down to breathe.
A second interesting point hereis that you can see that the two
feet are bent together,indicating that his feet were in
rigor mortis after death,because he was on the cross for
perhaps three hours or so afterhe had died, maybe more than

(15:33):
that, but that would be longenough for the muscles to harden
in that configuration.
So, both from the blood thatwas separated into clear and red
components and due to the rigormortis, this person that was
crucified was certainly dead.
These were experts.
You could tell whether theperson being crucified was still

(15:54):
alive or not from a block away.
If he wasn't pushing up anddown, he was dead.
If he was pushing up and down,he was still alive.
Very easy to tell.

Speaker 2 (16:03):
Yeah, Other interesting points are people
have looked at his arms.
I went back to the frontalimage and his arms look very
long and we believe that'sbecause his shoulders were
dislocated.
Is that right, Bob?

Speaker 1 (16:16):
Yes, At least one shoulder is believed to be
dislocated.
It could be both.
Again extremely painful.

Speaker 2 (16:23):
And rigor mortis.
So we know the body stays inrigor mortis post-mortem for
what?
Upwards of 40, 45 hours and Ithink we believe Jesus was in
the tomb roughly around 30 hours.

Speaker 1 (16:36):
Yeah, I think 36, I think.

Speaker 2 (16:39):
Yeah, 30 some hours, yeah, pretty extraordinary when
the resurrection moment, theflashpoint, the turning point of
all of human history took place.
You can see his knees are stillupright in the shroud, isn't
that right, bob?

Speaker 1 (16:52):
That seems to be the case, just due to the lack, the
lessening of the image on thedorsal side, at the knees.
Well, yes, now one caution here.
You know, we know how longrigor mortis lasts in a person
who dies normally, but how longit lasts in a person being
crucified is another matter.

(17:13):
He would have been extremelydehydrated and there would have
been all kinds of enzymes beingpumped into his system during
crucifixion from the extremepain.
But he did Well, but he didthat.
He did this all for us.

Speaker 2 (17:29):
Amen, that's the power of the crucified one.
I was just reflecting on thestory of the transfiguration and
Peter wanted to take you know,build tents or tabernacle there.
It's interesting he puts Mosesand Elijah on the same platform
as as Jesus.
One for you, one for you know,moses and Elijah as well, jesus.

(17:50):
And then the cloud descends,the presence of God.
And then the affirmation of theFather comes out.
This is my beloved Son, in whomI'm well pleased.
And then he adds listen to him.
And then they look up I lovethe story.
And then they see Jesus only.
And then, as they're headingdown the mountain, probably
Mount Hermon, they start havingthis debate about Elijah and
what it means, that he's goingto rise from the dead and that

(18:10):
he's going to suffer.
And then he gives this kind ofexplanation of you know, just as
Elijah suffered, just as theydid what they would to the new
Elijah, john the Baptist, theyrealized now Matthew's gospel
says John the Baptist, so theywill do to the Son of man.
The fascinating thing is in thestory in Mark's gospel, in the

(18:31):
very same chapter, they start todebate among themselves who's
the greatest, who's the greatest, and it's like.
Jesus is like.
You have no idea.
You have no idea because it'sgoing to be the cruciform path
that you all are going to follow.
Right before thetransfiguration, jesus starts
talking pick up your cross andfollow after me in Mark's gospel
.
So to go up is to go down inthis upside down kingdom journey

(18:56):
which Jesus gives us.
Up is down and life alwayscomes through death, and our
life comes through the death ofthe crucified one, jesus, who
laid down his life for the sinsof the entire world.
And here we have one piece ofcloth that gives us the
flashpoint of all of humanhistory.
So could you talk about andmaybe you got it coming later in

(19:18):
the slide deck but how we gotthis image?
We believe that it was theflashpoint.
Is now a good time to talkabout that, or do you have it
later on, bob?

Speaker 1 (19:26):
Yes, yes, this is a great time here.
The next slide covers the issueof what would have happened to
the shroud.
So, of course, the shroud wouldhave contained a lot of Jesus'
blood.
It would have been splatteredin many different locations
across the shroud.
And how important was Jesus'blood in the theology of
salvation in the early church.

(19:47):
Of course, extremely important.
So you know, would they havereused this piece of cloth?
No, they wouldn't have.
Would they have just thrown itout?
No, they wouldn't.
Would they have burned it?
No, they wouldn't do that.
Would it have been left in thetomb to be found by the Roman or
Jewish leaders?
Well, no, they wouldn't do that.
So they would have kept it.
And due to the persecution anddue to the Jewish sensitivities

(20:12):
against images, for example, itwould be difficult for them to
use it with Jewish audience.
But it seems like in Galatians3.1, I think they were using
this for apologetics andevangelistic work up in Galatia,
because Paul says something tothe effect I'm amazed that

(20:38):
you're so quickly departing fromthe faith, even after you've
seen the crucified Jesus.
And what is that referring to?
Well, if it's not referring tothe Shroud of Turin, I'm not
sure what it would be referringto.
So they saw it with their veryeyes.
It was some kind of an objectthat they saw with their very
eyes.
So you know, what we're sayinghere is that the Shroud of Turin

(21:01):
, based upon the evidence, thescientific evidence and the
historical evidence that itstarted in Jerusalem, evidently
taken down to Antioch, beforeJerusalem was destroyed in 70 AD
.
You remember Jesus told them todo that to get out of Jerusalem
when you see the armiesapproaching.

(21:21):
So they did, and they took itdown to probably Antioch, from
where it went out on variousdifferent missions, out to
Galatia, back up to Edessa, nowcalled Urfa in Turkey, and then
was taken up to Constantinople,I think, in an effort to stay

(21:43):
ahead of the Muslim armies.
They keep the relics out ofcontrol of the Muslims.
So then, I'm putting the dashedor dotted lines here on my
figure, because we don't knowthe route that it's taken,
though we have evidence that itwas there.
So it may have gone fromConstantinople either by water

(22:06):
or across land up to Leray,france, where it was shown as
the burial cloth of Jesus in1355.
So we have a continuous historyfor it from that point, in
about 1355 or 1356, in LerayFrance, across France.
It was in a fire in 1532 inChambery, france, where the

(22:29):
scorches were created, and thenit finally came into Turin,
italy, up in northwestern Italy,in 1578.
And it's been in Turin, italy,ever since.
So one item I'd like to read toyou was in a diary of a man
named Robert de Clary, and hewas a member of the Fourth

(22:50):
Crusade, and while he was inConstantinople in 1203, he wrote
in his diary.
There was another of thechurches which they call my Lady
, saint Mary of Blachernae.
Blachernae was a certaindistrict in Constantinople where
there was the shroud in whichour Lord had been wrapped, which

(23:11):
every Friday raised itselfupright so one could see the
figure of our Lord on it.
Very significant here.
Constantinople the rulers inConstantinople and the people
there loved little gimmicks bywhich they could do wondrous
little things, such as pulling,you know, yanking a pulley

(23:33):
underneath the box holding theShroud of Turin to make it
appear as though it's rising,you know.
So that's probably what theyhad done there in the church.
They'd have it up on the podiumor up, you know, up in an
elevated location.
But what I wanted to tell youwas that when they brought it
into a tour in Italy then in1578, they then they brought it

(23:57):
into the Savoy Palace, which mywife and I toured in November of
2023.
But then the cathedral wasbuilt on the one end of the
palace and that's where it's uhhas been located, and it is
located today, and we saw thebox in which it's located up in
the uh front left-hand corner uhof this cathedral, and they

(24:21):
have it on display just a fewtimes a century.
So in a hundred years theymight show it, you know know,
five or six times.
So last time it was shown wasin 2015.
And my wife and I didn't go seeit at that point, because you
can actually see it better justby looking at a photograph of it
, because the photographenhances the contrast.

Speaker 2 (24:41):
Hey, how miraculous you talk about that fire.
How miraculous that it didn'tlike destroy the shroud for one
one and that those scourge marksare like at on the sides of
Jesus's body, like it's kind ofmiraculous right.

Speaker 1 (24:55):
Yeah, it's almost like it's divinely protected.

Speaker 2 (24:59):
Yeah, maybe so, maybe so.
So let's keep going.
The image formation Talk aboutthe Shroud of Turin research
project that started in 1978.

Speaker 1 (25:08):
Yes.
Well, I think the next topichere is just testing.
You know, at this point youmight say well, if it's Jesus'
burial cloth, let's test itscientifically.
Well, that's been done.
And this all arose because, inthe early 70s, a man named John
Jackson, a professor at the AirForce Academy in Colorado
Springs, took a photograph ofthe face from the shroud and put

(25:30):
it under an electronic devicewhich translates light and dark
areas to elevations.
And what they found?
I'm trying to remember the nameof that device, it's not coming
to me right now, but I justdescribed it.
But what they found was that onthis two-dimensional image of

(25:51):
the face on the cloth, itcontains three-dimensional
information, and so that appliesto the entire body, so that you
can back out a statue from thethree-dimensional information on
this two-dimensional cloth.
Now, no normal painting orphotograph contains
three-dimensional information,but that fact puts the Shroud of
Turin into the class ofsatellite telemetry data

(26:15):
Fascinating.
So that amazing discovery wasdiscussed amongst American
scientists and it created theShroud of Turin Research Project
.
And, for example, there was agroup of about 40 individuals
got together and planned out along series of experiments and

(26:35):
then they were invited to Turin,Italy, to perform their
experiments, and I have apicture here of John Jackson
looking at the Shroud with hishigh-powered microscope, and
he's the leader of the Shroud ofTurin Research Project.
The acronym is STURP, S-T-U-R-P.

(26:56):
So what was their goal?
Their goal was to determine howthe images were formed.
They did other experiments aswell, but that was their overall
goal, Because that's the mainquestion how were the images
formed?
So their conclusion here nowthey worked for five days, 24
hours a day, in three shifts.

(27:17):
They had 26 scientists with theteam there that were working on
this and they had $2.5 millionworth of equipment that had been
donated to them for thisproject.
So their conclusion here wasthat the image is not due to
paint, dye or stain, becausethere's no pigment, no binder,
no brush strokes, no clumping offibers or threads, no

(27:38):
stiffening of the cloth, nocracking of the image along fold
lines, most or all of whichwould be present if it was paint
, dye or stain, but it's not.
So therefore, what is it?
Well, next test that we're done.
They looked at it with ahigh-powered microscope and they
found no capillarity, whichcapillarity is soaking up of a
liquid.
So therefore, the images werenot due to any liquid

(28:02):
Fascinating, so maybe it's ascorch, it's about the color of
a scorch, but could it be ascorch from a hot object?
So they turned out the lights,brought up a black light to
determine whether it wasfluorescing.
Now that's a term where ascorch will absorb the higher
energy, light that we can't seeand it will re-emit it at a

(28:24):
lower energy which we can see.
That's called fluorescence.
But the image did not fluoresce, but the scorches from the fire
did fluoresce.

Speaker 3 (28:32):
Sure.

Speaker 1 (28:33):
So the images are not due to a scorch and because
there's three-dimensionalinformation on it, it can't be a
photograph.
So what is it?
So they basically said we haveno idea what caused this image.
Maybe someone in the futurewill be able to determine what
it is.

Speaker 3 (28:48):
That's amazing.

Speaker 1 (28:49):
So I do.
You know this is fascinating,isn't it?
So I have a picture here of thethree to one herringbone weave
of the tip of the nose.
Now, this is a 64 power thatI'm showing.
The tip of the nose would bepresumably touching the nose, or
very close to the nose if itwas above the nose, be very

(29:11):
close to the nose, but this iswhere the image should be
strongest.
But that's what you don't see.
What you do see, all you see isa little bit of discoloration
on the top two or three layersof fibers in the thread.
Now again, the thread iscomposed of 100 or more fibers

(29:31):
that are twisted together, soit's only the top two or three
layers of fibers that arediscolored.
And then I have a slide thatshows that this discoloration on
the slide is just on thecircumference, all the way
around the outside of the fiber,but the inside of the fiber is

(29:52):
not discolored.
So how in the world could thisbe done?
Yeah, for example, if I gaveyou a flax fiber now, this fiber
would be one-fifth the diameterof a human hair and I assigned
you the task of discoloring itwith this extremely thin
discoloration.
It's less than 0.6 micrometers,it's about the thickness of a

(30:16):
wavelength of light.
It's about the distance of awavelength of light, and the
fiber itself is one-fifth thediameter of a human hair.
How would you discolor it thatway?
I had to think a long time tofigure out some way that this
could have been discolored, andI did come up with a way that,
based upon our known physics,this could be done.

(30:38):
But I think, before we get intoexactly how the images were
formed, let's get into thedating, and we mentioned this
before.
But the dating was done bycutting of small samples from
the corner of the shroud.
If the shroud is heldhorizontally, this would be the

(30:59):
upper left, the upper right, I'mnot sure.
If you're looking at it frombelow, it would be the upper
left corner, but it would be offof his foot, located off of his
foot over near the seamconnecting the side piece with
the main shroud, and this isright next to the corner, one of

(31:25):
the corners of the shroud thathad torn off at some unknown
time in the past.
The other corner, at the otherend of the shroud, also had torn
off, but this is where theywould have held it during the
exhibitions, and so that wouldhave been a weak point because
of the seam, and it evidentlytore off.
So they thought that's a goodplace to take the sample.

(31:47):
So that's where they cut them.
I show an image of them actuallytaking the cut in April 21st of
1988.
And then the next slide showshow that cut was then displayed,
and this is a diagram that Imade up.
You can see the back and cloth,the side strip and then the
main cloth below, and there's aline, a horizontal line, and

(32:13):
then to the right it shows avertical line up to the seam.
That shows the cut that wasmade.
And so there were threedifferent pieces that were
initially cut to go to Arizona,switzerland and Oxford, england,
three different datinglaboratories, and when they
found that the sample that wassent to Arizona was a little bit

(32:35):
smaller than the other two,they cut another piece to go to
Oxford, england.
So Oxford actually received twopieces, and the second piece,
that sent to Oxford, may havebeen cut from the other end.
I think it probably was, but soI think I'm showing this in the
wrong location.
I think it should be on theother end of that other half of

(32:56):
the piece.
But those three samples thenwere sent to the three different
laboratories and then eachlaboratory took their sample and
cut them into smaller pieces,so that we ended up with 12
different subsamples being datedat the laboratory in Oxford,
zurich and Tucson.
Now I list these values in thesequence from the left side of

(33:21):
the diagram, the small edge ofthe cloth, and that becomes
important Oxford, zurich andTucson.
So three samples from Oxford,five from Zurich and four from
Tucson were dated.
Now I calculate the dates.
On this.
I do the statistical analysis.
There's questions about thepublished values, but I did the

(33:44):
analysis using the normal orGaussian distribution assumption
, as is very commonly done, sothat I then weighted the
uncertainties, I came up withdates for each laboratory and
then I came up with an overalldate of 1277.8, plus or minus

(34:06):
12.6, whereas they came up withan uncertainty of 31,.
Quite a difference becomes verysignificant, so that we have
two options.
We have two options.
One option is that and thiswould be on the next slide
there's two options and if theShroud dates to 1260 to 1390 AD,

(34:28):
then it is not Jesus' burialcloth, of course, because Jesus
died in either 30 or 33 AD, nowthe day that he died.
We actually do know thatbecause the day of his death was
related to Passover, which isrelated to the phases of the
moon.
So we can know the day, thoughthere's some uncertainty as to
the Passover, which is relatedto the phases of the moon.
So we can know the day, thoughthere's some uncertainty as to

(34:49):
the year, so it's probablyeither 30 or 33.
I think 33 is the preferredyear by the scholars for his
death.
He certainly did not die during1260 to 1390 AD.
The second option is that ifthe shroud is Jesus' burial
cloth, then the images could nothave been made.

(35:10):
The images could have been madein his resurrection, but why
did the shroud carbon date to1260 to 1390?
So then, in the first option,if it dates to 1260 to 1390, you
have to explain how the imageswere made in 1260 to 1390 AD.
No one's been able to do that.
But if it dates to the time ofJesus, then how do you explain

(35:34):
the carbon dating?
Well, with my background innuclear engineering 38 years in
the nuclear industry it's almostlike I've been specially
prepared to take on this task.
So what I've shown here, I showmy diagram again, only putting
in the years that they dated,and I point at the center of

(35:57):
each of those samples.
So if we plot those dates atthe center of each of those
samples and plot it as afunction of the distance from
the left side of that diagram,the small edge of the cloth,
then what we get is the nextpicture, which is a plot.

(36:21):
The red points are the values,the vertical bar is the one
sigma uncertainty.
And what you see here is that,in order to get a line through
the three points of the data, Idid a best fit calculation,

(36:44):
which is a standard engineeringprocedure to find the line that
is the best fit through thosevalues.
And so I came up with y equals35.87x plus 1030.67.
Well, the significant thing isthe coefficient in front of the

(37:05):
x 35.87.
Let's round it off to 36.
So what that means is that theslope of this line is about 36
years per centimeter, which isequal to about 91 years per inch
.
So if you move the sample pointup 10 inches, you would
increase the carbon date by 910years, so that it would date to

(37:25):
the future, which is interesting.
How can a piece of would dateto the future, which is
interesting.

Speaker 3 (37:28):
Yeah.

Speaker 1 (37:29):
How can a piece of cloth date to the future?
And so what they did in theiranalysis?
They ignored this slope andthey said let's just take an
average.
So they, in my diagram I showthe black dash line is a
horizontal line at 1261, but itonly shows it going through one

(37:53):
point rather than three.
You need a sloped line to gothrough all three data points.
Okay, so I think it's importantto cover a quote here related
to this that Harry Gove statedand this is a very interesting
quote, and he was the mainpromoter of the carbon dating of
the Shroud of Turin and he saidit is a well-known fact that

(38:17):
scientists can produce whateverresults they want.
If you believe thatpassionately in something, you
can steer the results.
My God, we've all been guiltyof that.
Just amazing.
I've heard it sometimes said.
I think it's true.
It might be just a joke, but Ithink it's true.
If you take a sample in forcarbon dating, you know what

(38:39):
their first question is what?
How old is this?

Speaker 2 (38:45):
Yeah, that's super ironic.
Hey, let's pause right there,bob.
Uh, we got a statistician withus in, dr trey cox.
Uh, any kind of take on on thistrajectory?
I think it's super fascinatingI'm not a statistician, but that
you could get to the pointwhere you date the cloth into
the future.
Uh, dr cox, anything to addhere?
Well, I.

Speaker 3 (39:04):
I was wanting to maybe follow up on his, his, uh
points about the image formation, formation not being a painting
, if I could instead.
Yeah, that's fine.
Um, just need to get a littlebit of background on on some
mathematical ideas that supportthis.
Um, of course, this is a 2dimage, as bob said, and but it

(39:27):
has 3D information embedded init.
So, as far as what dimensionsmean, dimensions are directions.
So when we talk about threedimensions, we're talking about
length, width, height.
But current theory in physicsand mathematics is there's most
likely higher dimensions thanlength, width and height.
And when I say higherdimensions, I don't mean, like

(39:49):
most of us here, the fourthdimension is time.
Well, that's a temporaldimension, time.
The physics and evenneuroscience right now is saying
that they believe in theirtheories that there's higher
spatial dimensions.
So in neuroscience, currentneuroscience, trying to
understand and wrap their mindaround what consciousness really
is Exactly right, there's up to11 spatial dimensions in that

(40:15):
model.
And in modern physics currentlyin string theory, quantum
mechanics which, by the way, isthe background and support of
mathematics, of artificialintelligence, which is exploding
right now.
In that theory, there's up to26 spatial dimensions, which is
exploding right now.
In that theory there's up to 26spatial dimensions.
So, just accepting currenttheory and science, thinking
about what a transition from athird dimension to a higher

(40:38):
dimension?
I did some research on thatprior to our talk and I found
out that current theory saysthat if something goes from a
lower dimension to a higherdimension, there is A a very
high burst of energy and light.
B there's something called theholographic principle, which
means that the object that'sleaving one dimension and going

(40:59):
to another leaves behind a lowerdimensional projection, which
kind of sounds like a Shroud ofTurin picture, doesn't it?
Yeah?
And finally, the carbon datingissue that Bob just brought up.
Carbon dating assumes there's aconstant rate of change, so
things don't change over time.
So you can date things based onhow things change consistently.

(41:20):
Well, when you talk about goingfrom a lower dimension to a
higher dimension, photons whichare what light is made out of
that shifts their quantum statesand possibly converts them into
unknown particles that we don'teven know exist.
So think about what that woulddo to a linen fabric or material
.
I think the carbon datingassumption of a constant change

(41:42):
is a big error, big mistake.

Speaker 1 (41:45):
Yes, carbon dating is done by measuring in a sample
from the material.
It's done by measuring thecarbon-14 to carbon-12 ratio
because carbon-12 does not decay, so it's static, but carbon-14
does decay, with a half-life of5,830 years, I believe, and so

(42:07):
that that ratio of carbon-14 tocarbon-12 decreases with time.
So that when they measure thecarbon-14 to carbon-12 ratio
then they make that assumptionand use equations to then back
out a date.
But that date that's calculatedfrom the ratio is only accurate
if the assumption is correct.

(42:28):
So what I'm saying is that theassumption is not correct, that
there was something else thatwas changing the carbon-14 to
carbon-12 ratio in the samplesand that was neutron absorption,
creating new carbon-14 in thosesamples, which would then have
the effect of giving a youngerdate.

(42:51):
And that's exactly what we seeand it would explain, as I'll
describe soon.
It also explains why thesedates did not agree with each
other statistically.
We'll get to that.

Speaker 2 (43:06):
We will.
Are we going to get tovertically collimated radiation
burst Bob?

Speaker 1 (43:11):
Yeah, that'll be the.

Speaker 2 (43:13):
That's the final.
All right, I'm not giving itaway.
Here we go.
We're going to keep rolling.
So we got the quote.
Statistical analysis disprovesGet into that.
Do you need anything more tosay here, bob?

Speaker 1 (43:22):
Yeah, well, okay, we finished with Harry Gove.
Just amazing how you have to becareful with science to make
sure that science isn't beingdone to just satisfy
presuppositions, which is oftenthe case.
It's being done because theyknow what the answer is, based
upon their presuppositions, andI find that that is the case.

(43:44):
They presume that they knowwhat the date on the Shroud of
Turin is.
It has to be consistent withwhen it was dated, when it was
exhibited in Leray, France, in1356 to 1355.
And so they make thatassumption.
Therefore, they direct theirstatistical analysis to achieve

(44:04):
that goal.
It's goal-oriented, so thatfits into Harry Gove's quote.
So it's interesting that theBritish Museum, as I understand
it, did not fully release all ofthe data on the carbon dating
one of the most importantmeasurements ever done and they
wouldn't release the full data.
They would only do so in 2017,under threats of legal action.

(44:30):
They finally released it.
Then it allowed shroudresearchers to do statistical
analysis on the data, and theypublished four different papers
in peer-reviewed journals, allof which concluded that the
values they would call themheterogeneous, that is, that
they were not homogeneous.

(44:51):
Now what that means?
Heterogeneous means that thedates on the 12 subsamples the
carbon dates on the 12subsamples were not consistent
with each other within theiruncertainty.
They were heterogeneous insteadof homogeneous.
Now what that means is thatsomething strange was going on.
They should be consistent witheach other within their

(45:12):
statistical uncertainties, butthey weren't.
So what is it that was going on?
Let me go through the next slide.
Here there's many differentcontradictions to the carbon
date of 1260 to 1390.
Gold microparticles have beendetected on the Shroud of Turin,
which dates it prior toprobably 1204.

(45:34):
The hand-spun thread on theShroud dates it probably prior
to 1200.
Colored line drawing called theHungarian Prey Codex of the
Shroud.
It's dated from 1192 to 1195.
There's coins that were mintedand circulated as money with the

(45:57):
image from the face starting inabout 692 AD.
The first painting based uponthe Shroud of Turin was in 570
AD.
So all these values contradictthe carbon date 570 AD.
So all these values contradictthe carbon date.
The Paintedon's, another I'msorry, the Sudarium of Oviedo
dates to 570 AD.
That's the face cloth that'snow in Oviedo, Spain, and we

(46:25):
believe it is the face cloth ofJesus mentioned in John 20,
verse 7, based upon historicaldocumentation that arrived with
it in Spain.
And then paintings and artworksstarting about 550 AD, and then
the size of the shroud is 8 by2 cubits, which is the ancient
measurement, so this is veryancient.
Then number 8 was the accuratedepiction of the crucifixion

(46:48):
indicates that the image wasprior to 400 AD, because
crucifixion was outlawed in theearly 300s.
And then we have the traditionthat it was taken up to Edessa,
Turkey, in about 200 AD.
Then we have the ancient stitchthat I mentioned to you.

(47:10):
That dates it to the firstcentury, and radiation damage to
the fibers is similar to theDead Sea Scrolls, which date
before 70 AD.
So there's a lot of differentdate indicators that contradict
the carbon dating, but the mostimportant one is that we have

(47:31):
recent inventions of new datingtechniques for dating fabric,
specifically to date the Shroudof Turin, and so we have four
different methods that wereapplied.
One was applied in twodifferent locations, but these
four methods agree with thedeath of Jesus in the first

(47:53):
century and they contradict theradiocarbon dating.
Now, these methods are based oneither mechanical properties,
such as tensile strength and howtensile strength decays or
decreases with aging, or aspectrographic analysis, that is

(48:14):
, how linen changes inreflection of light with age.
The last date that has createdsuch a popularity of the Shroud
in recent months.
I would say would be the Waxusmethod, W-A-X-S, which is Wax W.

(48:37):
I'm trying to think what the Wstands for.
Anyway, this is the x-rayanalysis of the Shroud of Turin
maybe weighted x-ray analysis ofthe Shroud of Turin, and that
dates it very close to the timeof Jesus.
The uncertainty the time ofJesus is within the uncertainty

(48:58):
of three out of those fivemeasurements, so that this is
good evidence that the Shroud ofTurin actually dates to the
first century.
But then the question is wellthen, how could the carbon
dating be so wrong?
And that's why I think my workthen becomes important.
So my neutron absorptionhypothesis is stated this way,
and I should mention that mywrite-up on this is in my paper

(49:24):
33 in my website, which isshroudresearchnet.
Paper 33 writes up my carbondating hypothesis.
34 documents my image formationhypothesis.
So neutron absorptionhypothesis is that neutrons were
included in the burst ofradiation that caused the images

(49:48):
, and we'll get to that in aminute.
A small fraction of theseneutrons were absorbed in
nitrogen-14 in the cloth toproduce new carbon-14 atoms.
When the nitrogen-14 absorbs aneutron it kicks out a proton
immediately and then the nucleusof the atom changes to
carbon-14.
And this caused the shroud tobe carbon-dated younger than its

(50:12):
true age.
So I then, based on thisneutron absorption hypothesis, I
took one of my nuclear analysiscomputer codes that I'd been
running for years in the nuclearindustry and this is called
MCNP.
It's an acronym for Monte CarloN particle, where the N stands

(50:32):
for neutrons, so it cancalculate distributions of
neutrons and many otherparticles for that matter.
But what I end up with here andI hope people can see this
slide because this is importantthis is the results of my
nuclear analysis computercalculations.
And on the y-axis it shows thecarbon date.
On the x-axis it shows thedistance along the back, the

(50:59):
center line of the body, on thedorsal or back image, along the
backbone you might say.
And so the second point fromthe left is the carbon dating
value, because I had tonormalize all the results from
my calculation to something.
The only thing I couldnormalize it to was the dates
that were actually produced bythe three laboratories.

(51:22):
So I normalized the secondpoint from the left to their
average value of 1260.
Point from the left to theiraverage value of 1260.
But the two items of importancehere, one is that that second
point, from the left, you cansee, has a certain slope to it.
That's important.
The other important point isthat if you could get a sample
from underneath the center ofthe body mass on the dorsal

(51:45):
image, I predict that it wouldcarbon date to 8,500 AD, based
upon neutron absorption at thatpoint.
So this hypothesis is verytestable.
So a sample by the right elbowwould carbon date to 4,500 AD.
By the left elbow it wouldcarbon date to 3,500 AD.

(52:05):
It's different because by theright elbow would be the
limestone wall on that side.
So then, this slope that Ipointed out to you is just the
slope that I previously showedto you that results from the
three laboratory values, so thatthe calculated MCNP computer

(52:27):
calculation based upon neutronsbeing homogeneously or uniformly
emitted in the body producesthe same slope to the data as
obtained by the threelaboratories.
Now that's amazing.
It indicates I'm doingsomething right.
Okay, the other interesting itemhere is that the Sudarium of

(52:48):
Oviedo, the face cloth of Jesus,was carbon, dated to 700 AD,
and at that point it was saidthat, well, this can't possibly
be authentic, but I predictedthat that face cloth in the tomb
would be dropped on the rightbench, because most people are
right-handed and it would bedropped just next to where the

(53:09):
person was doing the burial wasstanding at the front of the pit
or stand-up area, so about 15to 18 inches in front of the
back bench.
So it'd be on the right bench,15 to 18 inches in front of the
back bench.
That was my prediction when Idid the calculation.
The carbon date for thatlocation was 700 AD, just what
the laboratories determined.

(53:30):
To me this is an amazingconfirmation.
This concept has also beenconfirmed by testing of my
results against fluorescence onpictures that were taken in 1978
.
And there's a very interestingcorrelation between the two.
So let's go on to the next, sothat there are actually four

(53:52):
different dates, four differenttypes of evidences from carbon
dating.
We have the mean value of 1260to 1390.
Number two we have the slope ofabout 36 years per inch, which
is 91 years.
36 years per centimeter, whichis 91 years per inch.
The third is just thedistribution and range of carbon

(54:15):
dates for the 12 subsamples,and I haven't completed that yet
.
I'm now starting and trying todo that.
It's more difficult becausethese subsamples are so small.
And then the fourth is the datefor the face cloth of Jesus,
known as the Sudarium of Oviedo.
So so far my calculations haveproven to be correct for number

(54:38):
one, the average, number two,the slope, and number four, the
date for the face cloth, but notfor number three yet, and
that's what I'm working on now,to try and determine whether my
methodology is consistent withthat.
If I can do that, I think we'llhave good evidence that what
they were actually obtaining intheir carbon dating.

(54:58):
They were actually obtainingevidence for the neutron
distribution in the tomb ratherthan for the true date, rather
than from the true date of theshroud, which is very
interesting.
So, let's go into how the imageswere formed now.

Speaker 2 (55:14):
So to summarize, bob, the carbon dating is wrong.
That's what the layman kind ofthing, Is that fair?

Speaker 1 (55:20):
Yes, what I'm saying here is the equipment worked
correctly in obtaining thecorrect ratio of the carbon-14
to carbon-12 ratio, but thoseratios had been altered by
absorption of neutrons in thecloth and with my nuclear
background, that was obvious tome when I immediately read the

(55:44):
technical paper on this issue.

Speaker 2 (55:46):
Love, it All right, let's get to options for image
formation.

Speaker 1 (55:48):
Yeah, yes, okay.
Well, we could look at somepreliminary items here so that
we can say that the images werenot formed by an artist or
forger, based upon the STIRPanalysis in 1978, because the
images are not due to pigment,scorch, liquid or photography.
All attempts to duplicate theimages have failed.

(56:11):
The very best effort toreproduce the image of the face
was actually done by radiationcontrolled by information, which
is interesting.
Okay now, the images were alsonot by contact between the body

(56:33):
and the cloth, because the imageon the.
There is an image on the clothwhere the cloth would not have
been in contact with the body.
For example, if the cloth wasin contact with the nose, it
would not have been in contactas you go down the nostrils of
the nose.
Yet we have images of thatnostril as you could move down
the nose on either side.
So it's not due to contactbetween the body and the nose,
yet we have images of thatnostril as you move down the
nose on either side.
So it's not due to contactbetween the body and the cloth.

(56:54):
It's also not due to diffusionof molecules.
I hear this many times.
Diffusion is where a moleculejust randomly scatters off of
the air, molecules in randomdirections.
But as soon as you assumerandom motion of molecules going
from the body to the cloth,you're going to end up with no

(57:17):
information left because in eachscattering event you lose
information.
And if the scattering eventsare random, as it is with
diffusion of molecules, you'lllose all information in one
scattering event, so that you'llhave no information to transfer
from the body to the cloth andtransfer of the information that
defines the appearance of thecrucified man has to be

(57:42):
transferred from the body to thecloth in order to control which
fibers are discolored on thecloth to form the images.
Information is the key propertyto form the images on the cloth,
so that has to be a part of theimage formation hypothesis.
Also, it's unlikely to form theimages by any natural process.

(58:05):
Think of this there's beenbillions of people that have
lived and died in the history ofthe earth.
Yes, this is the only exampleof an image on a piece of cloth
being caused by a person, eitheralive or dead.
You know, I've gone through mycloset, I've gone through my
dresser and at no time has mybody left an image of my body on

(58:27):
the inside of anything thatI've been in, any fabric I've
been in contact with and you cando the same experiment.
It's safe enough for you to doat home, okay.

Speaker 3 (58:37):
I love it.

Speaker 2 (58:38):
So what is required to form the images on the shroud
?
This is amazing.

Speaker 1 (58:42):
Yeah, so there's three different things that are
absolute requirements.
You have to have a mechanism todiscolor the fibers, you have to
have energy to drive thediscoloration mechanism and you
have to have information tocontrol the discoloration
mechanism.
That's what I mentioned, that is, to discolor only the right
fibers with the right length ofthe discoloration to form the

(59:03):
images.
Now I'm saying that this iscaused by radiation, so that the
mechanism is related toradiation and we'll get into
that in more detail.
The energy is in the radiationitself and the information is
being carried by the radiation,so that the color, shades and
position is being carried by theradiation itself, just like

(59:24):
when you open your eyes and youlook at the scene around you.
How do you see that?
It's because reflected photonsreflecting off of everything
that you're looking at iscarrying information to your
eyes the colors, shades andlocations of each color and
shade to your eyes which is thenwhen it hits the rods and cones

(59:45):
at the back of your eye.
It's changed into electricalinformation carried by the
electrons going up your opticnerve to your brain, and your
brain has learned to interpretthose electrical signals in
terms of colors, shades andpositions, so that you can see
the scene around you Almost likeeverything has been designed.

Speaker 2 (01:00:07):
It's almost as if that's true.

Speaker 1 (01:00:09):
Yes, absolutely.

Speaker 2 (01:00:10):
All right.
So how do we recognize this isthe shroud as a crucified man?

Speaker 1 (01:00:14):
Yes, it's because the information that defines the
form of a crucified man has beenencoded into the pattern of
discolored fibers on the cloth.
When you pick up a photographof your neighbor, your spouse or
whatever, and you look at itand you say, well, that's
so-and-so, how is it that youcan identify him?

(01:00:35):
Well, it's because theinformation that defines the
appearance of that person hasbeen encoded into the pixel.
Is the fiber that's discolored,but it's still information that
has been encoded onto the linencloth that's located in Turin,

(01:00:56):
italy, dr Cox, I'm justwondering if I was muted.

Speaker 3 (01:00:58):
No, I'm good.
No, this is what I was talkingabout earlier the imprint on the
image.
If you take the current physicsmathematics that's currently
believed, that could be thereason that this has been left
behind.
It's a picture of Jesus.

Speaker 1 (01:01:16):
Yeah, so then we can see it, because photons of light
are reflected off of the shroudand carry that information to
our eyes, so that informationthat's embedded on the cloth is
carried to our eyes on reflectedphotons.
So that information that'sembedded on the cloth is carried
to our eyes on reflectedphotons, so that we can see it
and I'm thinking that could bethe result of going from a

(01:01:37):
three-dimensional world tohigher dimensions, yeah, well,
the results of what happens yeah, it's just, it's just amazing,
isn't it, uh?
but one thing, one thing topoint out here on the face, you
can see the eyes, you can seethe long nose, you can see the
mustache.
You can see the points ofbrightness on the mustache,

(01:01:59):
where I think this is becausecertain whiskers would be
standing upright on the mustache, like little lightning rods.
Lightning rod will attract thelightning to the tip of the
lightning rod and that's whathappened on the mustache.
Like little lightning rods,lightning rod will attract the
lightning to the tip of thelightning rod and that's what
happened on the mustache.
So the image formation isrelated to an electrostatic
event as well.
You see the mustache and thebeard, but between the two you

(01:02:23):
can see the teeth.
What you see is vertical lineswhich have been identified as
teeth.
Many people are able to see this.
There's been kind of a movementto poo-poo this whole idea, but
I think that the visibility ofthese, that they really are in
the image, because there'snowhere else on the cloth where

(01:02:45):
you see vertical lines like thisexcept where the teeth ought to
be, so that what we have hereis that we have radiation being
emitted deeper in the body thancoming through the teeth, so
that leaving this distinctionbetween the bright and dark
lines on the teeth so that it'ssomething coming from within the

(01:03:07):
body and I'm claiming that it'scoming actually from wherever
hydrogen is located, as we'llget to that.

Speaker 3 (01:03:15):
I think it's pretty humorous to think that people
assume that this could have beena painting in the Middle Ages.
Yeah, there's no way.

Speaker 1 (01:03:24):
Yeah, they didn't know what to do with it.

Speaker 2 (01:03:26):
Hey, while we're on this picture, do we know the
color of Jesus' hair and ormustache?

Speaker 1 (01:03:31):
Well, no, we actually don't have color on the shroud.
Everything that we see here isa straw yellow, or sometimes
called a sepia color.
It's all the same.
This is the color of a scorch,of a scorch, and now, but we've

(01:03:53):
already disproven that it can'tbe a scorch from a hot object,
because that would that woulddiscolor into the center of the
fibers as well.
So this is this is a scorchfrom a different mechanism.

Speaker 3 (01:04:00):
Okay that's what I was going to say.
It could be a scorch from uhburst of energy and light well,
let's share it where it is, thevcrb hypothesis here we go.

Speaker 1 (01:04:09):
Yeah, this is a yeah, vcrb, that's an acronym for
vertically collimated radiationburst hypothesis for image
formation.
Now this this is how I state itan extremely brief, intense
burst of vertically collimated.
Vertically colluming means thatit's it's going up and down,
it's it's not things beingemitted, uh, you know, in every
different direction, it's justvertically up and down.

(01:04:29):
It's not things being emittedin every different direction,
it's just vertically up andvertically down, oscillating
between the two.
But an extremely brief, intenseburst of vertically collimated
radiation, like a billionvertically oriented lasers going
off simultaneously from withinthe body be going off

(01:04:53):
simultaneously from within thebody.
Intense burst of verticallycollimated radiation was emitted
in the body that rapidlyoscillated between vertically up
and vertically down directions,so that the front and dorsal
images were made at the sametime.
That's why they're so similar incharacteristics.
They were made by the same time, even though the dorsal image
have the weight of the body onit, whereas the top cloth only

(01:05:14):
had the weight of the cloth onit.
Yet the nature, thecharacteristics of the images
are so identical because theywere both formed by radiation
from the body.
So this consists of thisradiation, I think consists of
charged particles, probablyprotons, that caused an
oscillating corona discharge.
That's like a little lightningbolt static discharge from the

(01:05:36):
top fibers facing the body.
That caused a high-frequencyalternating current.
We're going to an electriccurrent here in the fibers that
deposited heat in the thin outerlayer of the fibers to discolor
it.
So in some way you have to beable to heat this very thin
region going all the way aroundthe fiber, without that high

(01:05:58):
temperature being reached on theinside of the fiber.
And this is the only mechanismthat I could think of, and I
learned this in my first year ofphysics at University of
Michigan.
This is called the….

Speaker 2 (01:06:15):
I have no idea.

Speaker 1 (01:06:17):
Yeah, I'm trying to remember here.
It's the surface effect,something like the surface
effect of an alternating current, and you can look that up on
Wikipedia under something likethat.
So what happens is that analternating current produces
oscillating electric andmagnetic fields, which pushes

(01:06:38):
the electrons that are flowingin the wire out to the outer
radius of that wire, where theywould heat that very region.
That's needed to achieve a hightemperature to scorch it.
And I think that's whathappened.
We have to get back to analternating electric current in
the fibers in the cloth.

Speaker 2 (01:07:00):
So are you giving a scientific explanation for the
bodily resurrection of Jesus Bob?

Speaker 1 (01:07:06):
Okay, what I'm doing here is I'm just tracking back
scientifically.
I'm applying science here, onlyscience, and what I end up with
is that you have to assume thatthere was an oscillating
electric field which caused thenuclei in the body to oscillate
in a manner that provided enoughenergy for deuterium atoms to

(01:07:28):
split, releasing protons to formthe image, and neutrons to
shift the carbon date forward.
But when you say that you areoutside, you are beyond or
outside of our currentunderstanding of the laws of
physics.
So what is it that can explainthat Well, scientifically?
You throw up your hands and sayI have no explanation for that

(01:07:51):
scientifically.
But when I take off my sciencehat, put on my Bible believers
hat, and I say, well, isn't thatinteresting.
That's exactly what I wouldexpect when we're talking about
the disappearance of Jesus fromour perception of reality.
I would expect that to takeplace by a transition into an

(01:08:13):
alternate dimension.
Look at my paper two on theresearch page of my website,
shroudresearchnet.
It goes into that issue Exactly.
How did the body disappear?
Scientifically, the best optionis that his body made a
transition into an alternatedimensionality, from which then
he could return in hispost-resurrection appearances,

(01:08:37):
but by an act of his willbecause he was now in a
spiritual body, so that his bodywas under the control of the
spirit rather than under thecontrol of physics.
He was not in a physical body,he was in a spiritual body.
Referring to what wascontrolling the body.

Speaker 2 (01:08:55):
But they.
So now we get to the Bible.
They touched him.
So it was.
When you say spiritual, wedon't mean non-physical, but
they touched him and saw Okay,so that's what some people we're
not we're not preachingGnosticism here by any stretch
that the body's bad, it's justit's gone into a different
dimension and we see thatobviously as he moves freely in
the physical world through walls, through doors etc.

(01:09:17):
From one place to another place.
And this is where it's justmind-blowing, this third to
fourth dimension type stuff.
Dr Cox, anything more to addthere?
And then, bob, we'll give youthat.

Speaker 3 (01:09:33):
As we're coming down the homestretch.
I only got five more minutes,but this is fascinating.
Uh, dr Cox, that's totallyright.
I mean what?
We're not talking?
A spiritual body, meaning justeuphemistic, and not physical.
It's physical in terms of youcould touch it and feel it, but
it's not.
As Bob said, it's not bound bythe physical world anymore,
because it's it's accessing, yes, powers that he set aside as he
became man to live amongst us.
But he took that back on again.

Speaker 1 (01:09:55):
Yeah, so in the change from physical body to
spiritual body, the noun hasn'tchanged, it's still body.
It still has mass it still hasinertia you can touch it, you
can eat fish.
It's still a body, but there'sa basic change from physical to
spiritual, in the sense of what,of the controlling factors over

(01:10:16):
that body?
That's what I would say.
But it's still a body and thatthat nature of the spiritual
body is going to be the samenature that we will have in the
rapture and our resurrection.
Our bodies will be like hisbodies.

Speaker 2 (01:10:28):
Yep, amen, amen.
So who is this?

Speaker 1 (01:10:31):
Yeah, yeah.
So the question is who is this?
There's two criteria.
One is that this individual wascrucified, exactly like Jesus
was crucified.
The second criteria is that anextremely brief, intense burst
of radiation from his bodyproduced the front and back
images of his body on the cloth,as well as shifted the carbon

(01:10:53):
date forward.
So there's only one person inall of history can satisfy these
two criteria.
It can only be satisfied byJesus in his resurrection.
This was Jesus.
Amen.
That's what I think.

Speaker 2 (01:11:07):
Christ is risen.
He is risen indeed.
Alleluia, Bob.
Yeah, keep going.
This is is great.
What else are you going?

Speaker 1 (01:11:11):
to say well, I was going to say that.
So what?
What this does the?
You know there's threedifferent categories of evidence
that you have in court.
There's context.
So the context information forthe shroud, for the resurrection
of jesus.
We have old testamentprophecies and we have jesus own
predictions of his prophecythat were fulfilled.
Then there's eyewitnesstestimony Two classes there.

(01:11:33):
We have the empty tombtestimony of the empty tomb and
testimony of Jesus'post-resurrection appearances.
But we've never had scientificevidence for radiation causing

(01:11:54):
the image and causing theshifting of the carbon date.

Speaker 2 (01:11:57):
Hey Bob, this has been amazing.
I didn't need it, like I said,I mean the context and the
eyewitness testimony is enough.
But for some people, right andI'm speaking to all the people
who listened to this andunderstood everything you said
and I'm not one of those people,because I'm not necessarily a
scientist, in the same way I'mmore of a historian, right, so

(01:12:18):
the context that I witnessedkind of speak to me.
But for those that have beenscientifically wired, you have
made a fantastic case for thebodily resurrection of Jesus, dr
Cox.
Anything more to say there?

Speaker 3 (01:12:30):
No, I love everything you said.
We had him on campus.
Very powerful being able to seethe full-length shroud in our
sanctuary.
And thank you for your time,bob.
I love it and his paper hesuggested, tim.
I'm going to send it to youbecause it's excellent.

Speaker 1 (01:12:46):
Yes, so the bottom line is we live in a universe
where resurrection is possible,because it has happened and
we're going to look forward toour resurrection.

Speaker 2 (01:12:54):
Amen, that's it.
Christ has been raised, thefirst fruits of those who are
found in faith in anticipationof our bodily resurrection at
the last day, brand new,imperishable, eternal, powerful,
immortal bodies.
First Corinthians, chapter 15.
When the new Jerusalem comesdown out of heaven, like a bride
or adorned for her husband, andthe dwelling place of God will

(01:13:14):
be with men, we will see him, wewill be known and we will know
once again, with no possibilityof the curse, the rebellion, the
fall ever being a part of ourstory again.
What has been done will beundone.
When the new heaven and the newearth descend, our dwelling
place, perfection with God'sself, others and the rest of

(01:13:37):
creation will be ours, and allwe will know is the man of light
.
It's interesting in scripturehow consistent light gets
connected with life.
We can't live apart from lightand Jesus is the light of the
world and we're connected byfaith to the light and to bring
the light.

(01:13:57):
And this is an opportunity.
Right now we are called towitness to the light, and the
Shroud of Turin is a wonderful,wonderful gift from God.
Now, through science, there'sonly one who has walked this
path, this cruciform andresurrected path, and his name
is Jesus.
He is the Christ, the King ofkings and Lord of lords, who is
soon to return.

(01:14:18):
Bob, you are a gift, dr Cox,you are a gift.
This is the Tim Allman podcast.
Please like, subscribe, commentwherever it is.
You take this in and this isgoing to be released.
We're recording this wellbefore Holy Week, but we're
going to be releasing thisduring Holy Week and I pray.
This meditation, thisscientific explanation, gives
you great hope as you followJesus from Palm Sunday to the

(01:14:39):
upper room, to the cross and tothe empty tomb.
Jesus is risen, indeed,Hallelujah.
It's a good day.
Go and make it a great day.
Thanks so much, bob, thanks, drCox.