Latest / Ministry X / Shroud-Pilled Along with Dr. Trevor Lohman - Ministry X - 049

Transcript

Shroud-Pilled Along with Dr. Trevor Lohman - Ministry X - 049 · Ministry X

• 0:04
  Speaker 1: Hi, everybody, it's me Cinderella Acts. You are listening to
• 0:08
  the Fringe Radio Network. I know I was gonna tell them, Hey,
• 0:14
  do you.
• 0:14
  Speaker 2: Have the app? It's the best way to listen to
• 0:17
  the Fringe Radio Network. It's safe and you don't have
• 0:20
  to log in to use it, and it doesn't track
• 0:23
  you or trace you, and it sounds beautiful.
• 0:27
  Speaker 3: I know I was gonna tell him. How do you
• 0:30
  get the app?
• 0:31
  Speaker 4: Just go to fringe radionetwork dot com right at the
• 0:35
  top of the page.
• 0:37
  Speaker 3: I know, slippers, we gotta keep cleaning these chimneys.
• 1:23
  Speaker 5: You are listening to Ministry X on Fringe Radio Network.
• 1:29
  Just checking our levels. We'll get started here momentarily. We
• 1:32
  have a special guest joining us tonight, doctor Trevor Lohman.
• 1:38
  You might know him from the Happy Fools podcast here
• 1:41
  on Fringe Radio Network. You might know him from the
• 1:43
  Bad Press podcast. You might know him from his appearances
• 1:51
  on the Brothers of the Serpent podcast. But today he's
• 1:58
  going to be talking looking to us about the Shroud
• 2:01
  of Turin in his most recent book. Please stand by
• 2:09
  for that. Welcome to the show. This is ministry X.
• 3:23
  I am Daniel X, your host on the Fringe Radio Network.
• 3:28
  Go to fringeradionetwork dot com and download the Fringe Radio
• 3:33
  Network app. It's available for Android or Apple devices. Just
• 3:39
  click on the button that corresponds with your operating system
• 3:46
  right at the top of the page. There that's your
• 3:50
  main line to the Fringe. Actually, what happens is once
• 4:00
  to install it, and it doesn't have ads, it doesn't
• 4:03
  track you, it doesn't have a bunch of annoying notifications.
• 4:10
  But once you get it installed, then you click on
• 4:13
  it there and your phone becomes your remote control, like
• 4:24
  your garage door opener more accurately to the Fringe transmitter array.
• 4:35
  Now that's the best way I can explain it. And
• 4:41
  it's very complicated and scientific and involves quantum physics of course.
• 4:50
  But you just click on a title a show that
• 4:52
  sounds interesting, and it actually creates the aperture point and
• 5:01
  off you go. And now, whoa. It's not like an
• 5:06
  ascension app. You don't ascend. It's more like a warp
• 5:10
  field and you can learn about aliens, nephilum, cryptids, ancient civilizations, consciousness,
• 5:20
  I demons. I can't do it right now because it'll
• 5:27
  interrupt my show. But there's so much more there and
• 5:32
  it's all free. You can also sign up for text
• 5:35
  notifications and get notified whenever Fringe Radio Network is live.
• 5:41
  Then you can hop in the chat and follow along
• 5:43
  with the crew and the other listeners, other fringe travelers
• 5:47
  like yourself. Fringeradionetwork dot com Radio on the Fringe now.
• 5:55
  Fringe Radio Network has been around since twenty eleven. This
• 5:59
  year's actually our fifteenth anniversary, and ministry X came on
• 6:07
  board in twenty twenty thanks to Johnny McMahon. And we
• 6:14
  were in the middle of COVID nineteen and I came
• 6:20
  in talking about the Youmo hoax. In other words, I
• 6:24
  was deconstructing a UFO hoax from the nineteen sixties as
• 6:30
  my cover for talking about the pandemic hoax of six
• 6:37
  years ago. And my operating principle was understanding the anatomy
• 6:45
  of a hoax, a lie, a psyop, a deception in
• 6:51
  the hopes that people would turn their attention to the
• 6:55
  current deception with discernment with the sort of truth the scriptures,
• 7:04
  not exclusively, of course. I'm not like, listen here, bub.
• 7:09
  If it ain't in the Bible, it ain't real. No,
• 7:15
  we look at scientific papers, white papers, occult writings, science fiction, history, archaeology,
• 7:25
  all those sources of information, but certainly the wisdom of
• 7:32
  the books of the Bible as a testament to who
• 7:36
  God is, who Jesus Christ is, and who we are,
• 7:42
  our identity as human beings, God's imagers. The word itself
• 7:49
  is the most powerful weapon in your arsenal. And so
• 7:54
  this became a sort of discernment ministry podcast, and I've
• 8:00
  deconstructed a number of hoaxes and mysteries on this show,
• 8:06
  as you know. So what to do with this relic
• 8:12
  of the past, an artifact from centuries ago that the
• 8:19
  world assumes is a hoax? I just read an article
• 8:25
  claiming that artificial intelligence has proven that this ancient relic
• 8:31
  is a hoax from the Middle Ages. We now have
• 8:37
  proof because the AI has demonstrated it to us. And
• 8:44
  that's sort of at the center of some of this controversy,
• 8:49
  not only surrounding the Shroud, but sort of the current
• 8:56
  information war that we find ourselves in, the social engineering
• 9:02
  experiment that is the Internet that we're all participating in. Now,
• 9:11
  So we're gonna talk about the shroud of turn, We're
• 9:13
  gonna talk about a whole lot of stuff, hopefully with
• 9:19
  Trevor Lohman our guest, and I'm gonna see if I
• 9:24
  can get them on the line here. Let's see here, Trevor,
• 9:49
  what I can't hear you?
• 9:52
  Speaker 6: Have you guys ever thought about doing a fringe radio
• 9:55
  network YouTube?
• 10:00
  Speaker 5: Well, we had a fringe radio network YouTube. But it's
• 10:04
  an it's been an ongoing thing to where we threw
• 10:06
  up our hands because every time we get our account reinstated,
• 10:09
  it gets it gets another strike against it.
• 10:12
  Speaker 6: And did they tell you the reason that if like
• 10:14
  what specifically offends them or what?
• 10:17
  Speaker 5: Yeah, it's usually Michael Fashioned, Well, he'said certain guests on.
• 10:27
  He talks about certain things, mostly alternative health medic's uh
• 10:36
  is seems to be the thing. But then for a
• 10:40
  while they were they were going back like months and
• 10:43
  months and finding old old shows, and I guess they
• 10:47
  just go through everything and scan it. If there's a
• 10:49
  word in there they don't like, then.
• 10:52
  Speaker 6: You can say strike. You can say trans lizards killed
• 10:57
  Kennedy and it's like no problem. But the second that
• 11:00
  you mentioned that particular issue, yeah, got out there, but
• 11:06
  you should tell you something.
• 11:06
  Speaker 5: In my opinion, yeah, I think it does.
• 11:11
  Speaker 6: I got fired for that specific issue. So I have
• 11:15
  a soft spot in my heart for people who are
• 11:18
  fighting that good fight.
• 11:20
  Speaker 5: Was this you just asking questions? Or was it like
• 11:25
  refusing a vaccine or something like.
• 11:27
  Speaker 6: That, or yeah, the jab, the COVID jab. Yeah, I was.
• 11:32
  I couldn't believe it. Man. I was just like, are
• 11:34
  you is this a joke? Like are we all just
• 11:39
  pretending like natural immunity isn't a thing? Like I've had COVID.
• 11:45
  It was fine. I might've actually had it twice. It
• 11:50
  was not a big deal at all the second time
• 11:53
  compared to the first, Like why do I have to
• 11:56
  do this? It's nice to be vindicated, like it seems
• 11:58
  like we're all vindicated now, but at the same time,
• 12:01
  it's like I want a formal apology, Like I don't
• 12:04
  know who the president of WOKE is like left wing
• 12:07
  medical establishment, but I want him to come out and say, Trevor,
• 12:11
  I am sorry, you know, but we want Anthony Fauci maybe, yeah,
• 12:16
  I want I want to bletterr from Fauci that says, hey,
• 12:18
  my bad. You know, Hey, I'd forgive him, if you
• 12:22
  ask for forgiveness, I'd forget forgive him.
• 12:23
  Speaker 5: But it's never gonna happen. So we're just gonna go
• 12:27
  forward and pretend like that never happened.
• 12:29
  Speaker 6: Then until it until something just like it or related
• 12:34
  happens again. You know. We just yeah, it's crazy.
• 12:37
  Speaker 5: The thing is, you stir up, you stir up enough hysteria,
• 12:40
  and people will do the most ridiculous things. You know,
• 12:44
  to where you go to the grocery store and they
• 12:46
  have little footprints mapped out in the grocery store showing
• 12:50
  which direction down the aisle you can walk, and I
• 12:53
  just ignored it. I was just like, this is so ridiculous.
• 12:56
  Speaker 6: That's like, that's got to be some kind of great sorting,
• 12:59
  you know. It's like who's all in and who's like
• 13:02
  what are we doing? I mean, do you remember the
• 13:03
  little plastic the little plexiglass at the cashiers and you
• 13:07
  can never communicate through it, so you would just like
• 13:10
  stand to the side of it, and you guys would
• 13:12
  just sidestep it. It's like, what are we doing this?
• 13:16
  I can't believe I brought this up, But remember like
• 13:19
  walking to your table with the mask and then sitting
• 13:22
  down at a restaurant and then taking the mask out.
• 13:26
  Speaker 5: Yeah, I mean, luckily in Idaho we were a lot
• 13:30
  more isolated than other parts of the country, so we
• 13:33
  didn't have as many strict mandates and stuff. It was
• 13:36
  basically like business by business, but a lot of businesses
• 13:40
  would require you to have a mask. They'd also require
• 13:43
  you to scan a QR code to get their their
• 13:46
  menu versus a paper menu, because I can't go around
• 13:50
  handling paper menus anymore. And then it seems like some
• 13:55
  businesses are just like, oh, this is the new normal.
• 13:58
  Long after COVID's gone, and you know, they still have
• 14:01
  the plexiglass, they still follow the protocols.
• 14:04
  Speaker 6: It's just, you know, I'm pretty open to like giving
• 14:08
  people grace, like if you're a mom and pop business
• 14:12
  and you want to institute these rules because you're worried, Like, dude,
• 14:15
  I don't like to rock the boat, like I'll follow
• 14:18
  the rules. But it just it did cross some threshold
• 14:21
  or it just became like this is ridiculous, especially when
• 14:24
  it's coming from like a far off kind of power.
• 14:27
  It's one thing when it's like your local restaurant owner.
• 14:30
  It's another thing when it's the you know, the California
• 14:34
  Department of Public Health says you need to do this
• 14:36
  or you're fired. Tomorrow. The fact that you want me
• 14:39
  to so badly makes me not want to do it,
• 14:42
  you know. Anyway, Sorry for that random tangent there, but
• 14:48
  I assume we're kind of on the same page of that.
• 14:50
  I shouldn't assume, but.
• 14:52
  Speaker 5: Yeah, I would say so. I thought the whole thing
• 14:55
  was ridiculous and you just see your friends and family
• 14:57
  just go along with it and not ask any questions,
• 15:01
  like you know, we live in a free country, right, yeah, and.
• 15:04
  Speaker 6: There's no reconciliation, like like after World War Two, you know,
• 15:08
  the French were shaving the collaborators' heads, you know, which
• 15:11
  I'm not saying that's good or bad. I'm just saying
• 15:13
  there was like a there was like a cultural reckoning,
• 15:16
  like this was insane, and some of us made better
• 15:20
  choices than others, you know, like like some of us
• 15:24
  were like, this doesn't seem right, and it's just crazy
• 15:28
  to me that we never got that, we never got
• 15:30
  that closure, and it's just we've all forgotten about it.
• 15:34
  Like I had completely forgotten that happened until somebody brought
• 15:38
  it up the other day. And then you brought up
• 15:41
  the you know, YouTube censorship of the health stuff, Like
• 15:44
  it's like, oh, Yeah, that's right, that's right, Like the
• 15:49
  whole world lost its mind for four years.
• 15:54
  Speaker 5: So it just depends on whatever the taboo topic of
• 15:57
  the day is or handful of topics. YouTube, especially like here,
• 16:03
  audio podcasting we can talk about a lot more.
• 16:07
  Speaker 6: Yeah, I'm surprised that it is as free as it is.
• 16:11
  I think it maybe it's just a little bit more decentralized.
• 16:14
  Speaker 5: Yeah, it's decentralized, and I don't think they're Algorithmic scanning
• 16:20
  or whatever they do is as as advanced as it
• 16:23
  is with the video platforms. But the audio podcasting seems
• 16:28
  to be where you can get the most free speech action.
• 16:31
  Speaker 6: And we have Adam Curry to think for that. Yeah,
• 16:35
  the inventor of podcasting to put a blur book. So
• 16:38
  thank you, thank you Adam Curry. I'm very proud of
• 16:42
  that that I tricked him into putting a blurb on
• 16:44
  my book.
• 16:45
  Speaker 5: Do you listen to his podcast?
• 16:47
  Speaker 6: Oh? Absolutely less less lately, not for any particular reason,
• 16:52
  but lately it's just I'm just too busy. The world's crazy.
• 16:56
  I just feel like I'm not I'm not looking to
• 16:59
  be as inform is I used to want to be,
• 17:01
  Like I used to want to be informed what happened
• 17:03
  this week? You know. Now, I'm like, yeah, it's fine.
• 17:07
  Speaker 5: Yeah, I feel the same way. Sometimes. I have such
• 17:11
  a backlog of podcasts to listen to, and people are
• 17:13
  always telling me, oh, you should listen to this podcast,
• 17:15
  or you should check out this podcast. I labor away
• 17:18
  for ten hours a day Monday through Friday with my
• 17:21
  earbuds in, and I can just listen to music or
• 17:23
  listen to podcasts, and I still can't get through all
• 17:26
  of it. And at some point you're like, Okay, I
• 17:29
  kind of get it now, to the I understand what's
• 17:32
  going on to the degree that I need to understand it.
• 17:35
  Now I can kind of set this down and check
• 17:37
  out something else, you know.
• 17:39
  Speaker 6: Yes, yeah, And there's so much interesting stuff now, I mean,
• 17:42
  you can learn about anything. That's a blessing to have
• 17:44
  a job where you can just kind of throw your headphones.
• 17:46
  And people always ask me like, how do you know
• 17:48
  about so many different random things? And I'm like, dude, podcasts,
• 17:53
  you know, ad audiobooks and podcasts.
• 17:55
  Speaker 5: You know, huh so exactly. That's one of the main
• 18:00
  advantages of doing mindless labor.
• 18:03
  Speaker 6: Yes, yeah, yeah, can't do that if you're at thracic surgeon,
• 18:06
  you know. But if yeah, if you can, just if
• 18:08
  you're working on the computer or work in like you know,
• 18:11
  I don't know wherever.
• 18:13
  Speaker 5: Well, it's it's so loud, so you have to have
• 18:16
  ear plugs to begin with. So why not just have
• 18:19
  earbuds and listen to stuff and then we just hand
• 18:22
  signal to each other. Like it's so loud you can't
• 18:24
  even hear each other shouting.
• 18:25
  Speaker 6: So where do you live?
• 18:28
  Speaker 5: I work at a building supply company, Okay, okay, in
• 18:32
  a in a trust plant. So I'm like trust plant,
• 18:35
  trust plant.
• 18:36
  Speaker 6: Nice. Nice. So when I see when I see those
• 18:39
  big long flatbed semis piled with trusses, uh huh, they can.
• 18:43
  Speaker 5: Well, probably not in California, but most of the ones
• 18:46
  up here in the Northwest, a lot of them. We build,
• 18:49
  some of the bigger home building companies.
• 18:52
  Speaker 6: Yeah, we're still building houses out here. For some reason,
• 18:54
  people still would choose to live in California, which boggles
• 18:58
  the mind.
• 18:59
  Speaker 5: But well you can if I mean, if you're in
• 19:03
  the right profession and your spouse is also in a
• 19:07
  good paying profession, I think you can. You can make
• 19:09
  it happen. You know, if you're willing to commute an
• 19:12
  hour to work or an hour and a half to work.
• 19:15
  Speaker 6: That's that's the problem, because there are cheap areas to live.
• 19:18
  I mean, I live in a relatively cheap area for
• 19:21
  California at least, And but like people commute to LA
• 19:28
  for work. And you know, right now, I could drive
• 19:31
  to LA in forty five minutes. But if I wanted
• 19:34
  to get to LA at eight thirty am, it'd take
• 19:36
  me three hours. And so it's like, that's a dude,
• 19:40
  that's what people do. It's like, oh, no, wonder we're
• 19:44
  also we're also miserable anyway. Man, So the world's falling apart.
• 19:49
  It seems like seems like it sometimes I think maybe
• 19:53
  it always has been.
• 19:57
  Speaker 5: Yeah, I've heard that argument too. All you know, all
• 20:00
  the Christians in these circles, you know, the ones that
• 20:05
  are interested in prophecy and the end times and stuff.
• 20:09
  It's like every news headline it's prophetic. This is in
• 20:13
  the Bible. Yeah, I'm telling you, it's in the Bible.
• 20:17
  But I think it's been the end times probably since
• 20:19
  the Crucifixion, is the way I look at it.
• 20:21
  Speaker 6: Some of you, what did he say? Some of you
• 20:24
  standing here will witness the resurrection or the Second Coming? Well, right,
• 20:31
  isn't that in the Gospel something like that. I've always
• 20:33
  never known to make of that line.
• 20:36
  Speaker 5: I think some of you here will see the Kingdom
• 20:40
  of God.
• 20:41
  Speaker 6: Yes, yes, before you pass, or something like.
• 20:45
  Speaker 5: That, yeah, which can be interpreted a few different ways.
• 20:48
  Speaker 6: But yeah, yeah, I remember reading that. I was like, oh,
• 20:52
  that's interesting. I've listened to the Gospels now probably like
• 20:58
  eight times over on audiobook, but sometimes I wonder if
• 21:02
  there might be something kind of special just about actually
• 21:05
  reading it. So I've been meaning to actually sit down
• 21:07
  and read it, but of course, you know, you're busy,
• 21:10
  you don't do it, and then you realize, like, oh,
• 21:12
  maybe that's why reading it would be better, because I
• 21:14
  wouldn't also be doing the dishes, you know, well, while
• 21:18
  listening to it on tape.
• 21:19
  Speaker 5: But I think for me, I've tried to listen to
• 21:23
  audio books and it's hard for me to follow. Yeah,
• 21:26
  but that was when I was listening to like, like novels,
• 21:31
  like fiction. I find myself having to rewind and I
• 21:36
  missed a whole paragraph or whatever because I'm just I
• 21:39
  get distracted too easily. I guess when my eyes are
• 21:43
  buried on text in a in a book, it's a
• 21:45
  little bit easier for me to follow and absorb what
• 21:48
  I'm reading.
• 21:49
  Speaker 6: Yeah, I've got I've got the passage for you. Now.
• 21:54
  My tendency is to always go to NIV. But my
• 21:56
  co host on Happy fool As Alfredo would tell me
• 21:59
  that that's blast with me, and I should be I
• 22:01
  should be reading this in Shakespearean English. What do you
• 22:07
  agree with my co host?
• 22:08
  Speaker 5: Or I've I've heard that the NIV is not the
• 22:11
  best translation.
• 22:12
  Speaker 6: Yes, I heard that, but I can read it. I
• 22:15
  can read it, you know what I mean?
• 22:17
  Speaker 5: Yeah, I like, I like the V two.
• 22:21
  Speaker 6: Yeah, because it's like I mean, my argument to him
• 22:25
  is like, you know, let's say the Greek translation is best, right,
• 22:31
  I don't read Greek, you know, and so like it's
• 22:35
  not the best translation for me. You know. That's how
• 22:37
  I feel about King James, because it's like I can
• 22:40
  only I lose track of the vowels and the lests
• 22:43
  and the thyes, and I'm like, wait, what are we
• 22:45
  talking about? So anyway, es V says, truly, I say
• 22:49
  to you, there are some standing here who will not
• 22:51
  taste death until they see the son of Man coming
• 22:54
  in his kingdom. You could say that that moment happened
• 23:00
  when he ascended. I don't know. I'm not at theologian.
• 23:07
  Speaker 5: Well, you had told me that you wanted to talk
• 23:10
  about the Shroud of touring.
• 23:12
  Speaker 6: I'm chilling the Shroud pill book like a madman. At
• 23:15
  least I'm trying to. I haven't. I haven't gotten any
• 23:18
  podcasts lately. But what did we talk about this last time?
• 23:23
  I can't remember.
• 23:24
  Speaker 5: We did talk about it a little bit. We were
• 23:25
  talking about your other book, God's Eye View, and then
• 23:30
  I mentioned the Shroud, and so we were talking about
• 23:32
  that a little bit, but we only touched on it.
• 23:35
  Speaker 6: I've been I was. I was fascinated by this. Even now,
• 23:40
  I feel like people I talk to you, they want
• 23:42
  me to say, is it the is it Jesus' barrel cloth?
• 23:47
  Or isn't it? And I still this is a bad
• 23:51
  way to sell books. But I'm still not exactly sure
• 23:53
  I have a correct answer. It's sure it's something amazing,
• 23:58
  whatever it is, like I think, no matter what anyone
• 24:02
  thinks about the topic, I promise you if you look
• 24:04
  into it, it is mysterious. It's not for people who
• 24:09
  don't know. I mean I always assume everyone knows what
• 24:10
  the shout of turn is, but I do come across
• 24:13
  people often who are like, what, what's that? So, so
• 24:18
  it's a it's a it's a large cloth, I want
• 24:21
  to say, it's I don't remember the exact length of it,
• 24:26
  but the image of it. There's an image of a
• 24:29
  man in it's a six foot tall man who looks
• 24:32
  like what we would think Jesus looks like, and has
• 24:36
  evidence of torture in this image and potentially crucifixion, and
• 24:42
  it captures the front and back of Jesus if it really,
• 24:46
  if it really is Jesus, And so it's been protected
• 24:51
  through history and we can talk about how far back
• 24:54
  we really think it goes. And uh, it's in Turin,
• 24:59
  Italy right now, and it's not on displavery often, but
• 25:02
  occasionally it will go on exhibition and you can see
• 25:04
  it and everyone just sort of assumes it's fake, or
• 25:10
  at least they used to. Right. Maybe let me can
• 25:15
  let me tell like the traditional like the timeline that
• 25:18
  anyone would have experienced if they're like in their twenties
• 25:21
  or yeah, twenties to sixties. You know, everyone probably anyone
• 25:26
  who's alive and sort of the try to turn what
• 25:28
  you would have been exposed to is in the eighties,
• 25:35
  it would be hotly debated whether or not this is real.
• 25:38
  You know, you'd have the secular folks saying, well, obviously
• 25:40
  it's not real. Then you'd have the Catholics saying, it's obviously,
• 25:44
  of course it's real, because we have this chain of
• 25:47
  custody that extends, you know, possibly all the way back
• 25:49
  to the first century, and there's no paint that we
• 25:53
  can tell. And it's clearly not the work of a man.
• 25:56
  It's one of a kind. It's truly unique. And when
• 25:59
  you view it in negative it looks like a photo.
• 26:04
  And that's true. I mean, in eighteen ninety eight, this
• 26:06
  guy took the first picture of it, and in negative
• 26:09
  looks like a photo. So the Catholics would say, absolutely
• 26:11
  is reel. Protestants are probably divided, and then secular folks
• 26:15
  would say it's fake. Then in eighty nine it was
• 26:20
  carbon dated to thirteen twenty five, let's say, and there
• 26:26
  we know for sure we have like a great historical
• 26:29
  reference that the shroud appeared in Lere, France about twenty
• 26:35
  five years after that, maybe fifty years after that, So
• 26:39
  it was just like, oh, it's fake, it's medieval. It
• 26:42
  was just I mean everyone, even the Catholic Church was like, yeah,
• 26:45
  it's fake. You know. I mean they basically admitted it.
• 26:48
  It's still an important relic, but it's not truly Jesus.
• 26:57
  Speaker 5: Isn't that their official position on it. They haven't. They
• 26:59
  haven't declared it official, an official holy relic, like verified,
• 27:05
  but I think they do venerate it, yes, exactly, Yeah, yeah.
• 27:09
  Speaker 6: Right, they venerate it. I don't know. I don't know,
• 27:13
  like necessarily their official take. I mean, anyone who's anyone
• 27:17
  who works with it, like any of the Italian university researchers,
• 27:21
  they always call it the Holy Shout of Turn. But
• 27:24
  as far as like the official church position, I don't know.
• 27:28
  I think they're still kind of maintaining that they're not certain,
• 27:33
  and I mean that's I think probably the only position
• 27:35
  you can take. But man, when you dig into it,
• 27:38
  I've got questions, man, I mean I've got questions, and
• 27:42
  so I try to put as many pictures as I
• 27:44
  can in the book. But I mean, for first is
• 27:47
  the issue of like why is there only one of these?
• 27:52
  You know, if there existed a person who could do
• 27:55
  this you know, this would this would be this would
• 27:59
  be a master of relic forgery, right, I mean like unparalleled.
• 28:03
  I've never seen anything like it. First of all, why
• 28:06
  don't we know who he is? And why is there
• 28:10
  only one? Because you would think this guy would have
• 28:13
  gone from like town to town, country to country selling
• 28:16
  these things for fortunes. And also it's it's odd because
• 28:23
  we it seems like Jeffrey de Charnie was this French
• 28:28
  knight and he was like he's basically like the equivalent
• 28:31
  of a modern war hero. He saved his king. He
• 28:35
  was in an English prisoner of war camp. He prayed
• 28:40
  to be set free, and he was in a way
• 28:43
  that felt miraculous to him. And he was very wealthy.
• 28:46
  He returned to France and he built a cathedral in
• 28:49
  Ley and so somewhere around you know him returning to
• 28:54
  France and then going on the on the Fourth Crusade,
• 28:59
  and that's a crusee where they turned on the Eastern
• 29:02
  Church and they sacked Constantinople, which is where a shroud
• 29:06
  called the Shroud of Constantinople was located. He didn't actually
• 29:10
  go to Constantinople. He went to Greece, but the idea
• 29:14
  The thought is that the shroud of Constantinople was taken
• 29:17
  to Athens after that crusade, and there's a lot of
• 29:22
  evidence to that. There's we have a written communication that
• 29:26
  the shroud of Constantinople was stolen and taken to Athens.
• 29:31
  This is not like a guest. I mean someone wrote
• 29:33
  that down in Constantinople. He goes to Athens around that time,
• 29:38
  he comes back, he has a shroud. Now he doesn't
• 29:41
  say he got it in Athens, but I mean it
• 29:43
  logically kind of follows. But we also have a letter
• 29:48
  from this guy named Henry de Poitier claiming that he
• 29:51
  had the artist. He got an artist to confess to
• 29:55
  making it, and they wrote a letter to the Pope.
• 30:00
  But Henry de Portier, he's not actually the one who
• 30:03
  wrote the letter. The letter is written by this other
• 30:05
  guy named the Arcus. I'm probably pronouncing these all wrong.
• 30:09
  Years later after Henry died, and he wrote it to
• 30:13
  the Pope and said, hey, there's this guy in lee
• 30:16
  Ray showing this fake cloth, this face fake burial cloth
• 30:20
  of the trout, and my predecessor, Henry de Poitier, had
• 30:25
  interviewed the artist and it's like, man, this is like
• 30:28
  a third hand account now, because you're saying, you're saying,
• 30:30
  this guy who died decades ago told you once decades
• 30:35
  prior that he hadn't met the artist. We don't know
• 30:38
  this artist's name, like you would have wanted to. This
• 30:41
  guy's a master, right, like a true master, did stuff
• 30:46
  that no one else has ever done. We don't know
• 30:48
  this guy's name. Also, the cathedral in Leray was putting
• 30:51
  the cathedral in Troyez, Troyez that this guy, the arcist
• 30:57
  managed that he's a you know, clergy bishop, I guess,
• 31:02
  was putting them out of business. Basically, so these cathedrals
• 31:06
  they operated on pilgrimage. People would come, they'd give money,
• 31:11
  et cetera. And no one was going there because twenty
• 31:14
  minutes down the road you have the burial cloth of Jesus,
• 31:17
  So you're going to the cathedral in Leray, right, And
• 31:20
  so he wanted this thing shut down, and eventually it
• 31:26
  seems like he succeeded, but not from the pope technically
• 31:30
  the anti pope at the time, from the King of France,
• 31:34
  from French royalty. They basically they wanted the shroud and
• 31:39
  then so from there it travels from Castle to castle
• 31:43
  for seven hundred years, and it's worshiped. At one point
• 31:48
  it's venerated by the House of Savoy, which ruled Italy.
• 31:52
  That's how it gets from France to Italy, and that's
• 31:56
  where it is to this day. It was eventually purchased,
• 31:59
  I guess or answerred or donated from King Umberto to
• 32:02
  the Holy See, and so now it is, you know,
• 32:05
  property of the Church. And so at the very least
• 32:11
  we can say these people thought it was important, you know,
• 32:16
  for at least seven hundred years. But if it goes
• 32:18
  back to Constantinople, which we have every reason to believe,
• 32:21
  and at least goes you know, it goes further backwards
• 32:24
  into history to nine forty four, and it was in
• 32:28
  it was in a temple in Constantinople. It arrived in
• 32:31
  nine forty four. People describe it as a faint stain
• 32:34
  on a linen sheet of our Lord of a crucified
• 32:37
  and tortured man. And then they got it from Odessa,
• 32:44
  and it's it was in Edessa back into like four
• 32:48
  hundred AD. Then we kind of lose track of it.
• 32:52
  You know. There's this idea that maybe King Abgar got
• 32:55
  it from the disciples. The disciples gave it to him
• 32:58
  as a gift, but we don't really know. But but
• 33:02
  then like, let's let's let's just take it to four
• 33:04
  hundred eighty. Who's making this thing? At four hundred eight,
• 33:10
  good point, who's making this thing? And people might be saying, like, oh,
• 33:15
  everybody wants to see what Jesus looks like, right, you
• 33:18
  see the virgin Mary and grilled cheese sandwiches. You know,
• 33:21
  there's all these Catholic miracles and stuff. But it's well,
• 33:26
  i'll pause. We can get into why it's mysterious. But
• 33:28
  I don't know, have you have you kind of already
• 33:30
  heard that stuff or any questions about them.
• 33:32
  Speaker 5: I've heard I've heard some of that stuff. Yeah, I
• 33:36
  was gonna ask you, did you because you talked about
• 33:40
  like if you'd grown up in the eighties and like
• 33:42
  what you may have heard about the crowd, what would
• 33:45
  did you at one point dismiss it out of hand?
• 33:49
  Speaker 6: Oh? Yeah, yeah, I mean I grew up eight I
• 33:50
  grew up atheists. So I mean, to me, the idea
• 33:52
  that there's a picture of Jesus was of course silly, right,
• 33:57
  That's what I had thought. I thought that until two
• 34:01
  years ago. Honestly, I just assumed it was a painting.
• 34:07
  And that's a crazy assumption to have when you look
• 34:10
  into because like it's just it's definitively not a painting.
• 34:14
  You know. I'm not saying we have proof it's the
• 34:18
  image of God. I'm just saying it's not a painting.
• 34:21
  It's whatever it is, it's not a painting.
• 34:24
  Speaker 5: So I remember reading about it in like these Mysteries
• 34:29
  of the Unexplained, you know, Reader's digest books, and there
• 34:32
  would be a page on the shroud and it was
• 34:35
  presented as unknown and mysterious in that context. And then
• 34:41
  later on at some point I had heard, oh, well,
• 34:44
  most scientists believe it's a medieval forgery, and I kind
• 34:48
  of gave up really looking at it.
• 34:51
  Speaker 6: I think that's probably almost everybody's experience, somewhere between mine
• 34:57
  just dismiss it out of hand and yours. I mean,
• 34:59
  I don't think there's any people who in nineteen ninety
• 35:02
  five thought it was real, you know, thought it was
• 35:06
  really But we've kind of like moved the goalposts as
• 35:11
  to what we think it is because of how mysterious
• 35:13
  it is. I mean, traditionally it was like, Okay, this
• 35:16
  must have just been It's like a stain, right, So
• 35:19
  Jesus was in it for two days. He was bloody,
• 35:22
  covered in fluid, you know, perspiration and blood, and so
• 35:27
  that's somehow transferred. But it's it becomes pretty obvious, like
• 35:32
  immediately that's not what it is. I mean, it's funny
• 35:34
  because some of the biggest people who are trying to
• 35:37
  prove it's fake, they'll just try to prove that aspect
• 35:41
  of it being fake. They'll say, well, well, if this
• 35:44
  was really a transfer, then it would be distorted, you know,
• 35:47
  because if you were to, like if you're like put
• 35:49
  a mask on your face, take it off and then
• 35:51
  unfold it so it's flat, it'd be really warped. That
• 35:54
  could be distorted because the sides of your head would
• 35:56
  be over here, you know. And so they always try
• 35:59
  to just a sad aspect of it. But early on,
• 36:02
  like in the seventies, NASA, Los Alamos Labs JPL, if
• 36:09
  they were around back then, I assume they were, they
• 36:11
  were looking into this. If there was a team that
• 36:13
  had like forty scientists, it was called STURP. It was
• 36:16
  mostly Los Alamos Labs, real scientists, physicists, you know, engineers, chemists,
• 36:22
  photography experts, medical imaging experts. They were looking into it,
• 36:28
  and immediately what struck them is that there's three D
• 36:33
  information encoded in this. People have a field day with
• 36:37
  the word encoded. They'll say it's not encoded, but no,
• 36:39
  it is. It is so like the way the way
• 36:42
  you might so like I deal with medical imaging, and
• 36:48
  so the way you might study the brains. You might say, okay,
• 36:52
  well let's use an MRI and let's measure. What you
• 36:55
  measure is proton spin decay. And so you say, okay,
• 37:00
  this part of the brain, the protons. The basically the
• 37:04
  way MRI works is you apply this electromagnetic field and
• 37:08
  all the axes of the protons aligned to it. They
• 37:10
  align to the electromagnetic field. Then you remove the field
• 37:14
  and you measure how quickly they go back to rest.
• 37:18
  And so different tissues go back to different to rest
• 37:20
  at different rates. So you can say, okay, well that's
• 37:22
  gray matter, that's white matter. You know, that's the hippocampus,
• 37:27
  that's the putamen. You know, that's the Kaudae nucleus. And
• 37:32
  so the way you store that information is in a
• 37:35
  color value. So you make a color bar on the
• 37:39
  MRI and white would be like, let's say it depends
• 37:42
  on the type of skin you're doing, but white might
• 37:44
  be really rapid decay and maybe that's fluid. So you say, okay,
• 37:48
  bright white is fluid, or maybe bright white is you know,
• 37:52
  fat or whatever. Anyway, so you figure out what it is,
• 37:54
  and so you code data into the image using monocatic scale.
• 38:03
  That is what the shroud is. I mean, the shroud
• 38:05
  you coat. Basically, what's coated into the shroud is distance
• 38:08
  between the body and the cloth. Okay, so things that
• 38:12
  are right up against the cloth, like his nose, are dark.
• 38:16
  Mm hmm okay, things that are farther away are white.
• 38:19
  And it's very graded. So like you know, it doesn't
• 38:24
  look like much like this. Right, there's fold marks, so
• 38:30
  you got to try to kind of ignore those. You
• 38:32
  see a head, you see a body, you see his
• 38:34
  arms crossed, you see legs, but you flip that so
• 38:40
  you you take a photo of it and look at
• 38:42
  the negative and it looks like this is thrilling audio.
• 38:49
  Sorry people, it looks like I mean, we're losing a
• 38:56
  lot through the zoom camera here. And the fact that
• 38:58
  this was originally a sea image that's black and white
• 39:01
  in my book, but it's it is a photorealistic image
• 39:05
  of a man. And so the question is like, okay,
• 39:09
  is adding the most incredible thing ever? And it's like, well,
• 39:11
  yeah kind of, because what you're saying is it was
• 39:14
  painted right, So some master of negative imagery had to
• 39:19
  exist at least seven hundred years ago, and the only
• 39:23
  way to see what a negative image looks like and
• 39:26
  negative is with a camera. So we're four hundred years
• 39:29
  before the invention of photography, right, So some individual had
• 39:33
  to know how to paint this thing and negative in
• 39:37
  like this elaborate hoax to fool future people who first
• 39:41
  take a photo of it in eighteen ninety eight and
• 39:45
  being and being like stunned by how realistic it is. Right,
• 39:49
  It's like, bro, come on, what are you saying?
• 39:51
  Speaker 5: You know like this, it doesn't it doesn't follow very well.
• 39:54
  Speaker 6: Yeah, it doesn't get to.
• 39:56
  Speaker 5: Get the gradiot right and everything. Yeah, when you don't
• 40:01
  even have a conception of what a negative or a
• 40:03
  photograph even is exactly.
• 40:08
  Speaker 6: Now, I don't want to totally like, I don't want
• 40:10
  to mischaracterize saying to mislead people. I mean that now.
• 40:14
  The pushback because arguments evolve, you know, someone comes up
• 40:17
  with a great point and then the other position instead
• 40:21
  of no, you know, in this business, like no one
• 40:24
  just says, oh, you're right. You know, they say, okay,
• 40:25
  I gotta They wring their hands and they're like, how
• 40:27
  can I rebut this? You know. So now it's like, okay,
• 40:31
  fair enough, You're right. There's no way it could be painted.
• 40:35
  But maybe something about the way it was made like
• 40:40
  inadvertently accomplishes this negative this negative imagery and this three
• 40:48
  D depth encoding. And so one idea is that it
• 40:52
  literally is a photo. You know that in thirteen the
• 40:55
  thirteen hundred's, somehow they were able to make this huge
• 40:58
  quartz lens, which we have no evidence they could do.
• 41:01
  I mean, the biggest quartz lenses we found or for
• 41:04
  you know, eyeglasses. Even though there was no we didn't
• 41:08
  know that like reactive salts could be used to make
• 41:13
  photos until hundreds of years later. Maybe someone did know,
• 41:17
  you know, it.
• 41:18
  Speaker 5: Get like like a photo emulsion or something that like
• 41:22
  the parts of it are exposed to light and the
• 41:25
  other parts are not exposed to light.
• 41:27
  Speaker 6: Yep. And so maybe they dip this in in this
• 41:32
  silver nitrate or whatever and they hang it up, it'd
• 41:35
  be two separate photos because it'd be a front and
• 41:37
  a back. So they hang it up and then it's
• 41:40
  a it has to be a pitch black room, right,
• 41:43
  And they piss in a bucket somehow they know all this.
• 41:46
  They piss in a bucket because then the ammonia will
• 41:49
  evaporate over days and it will fix the image. So
• 41:53
  they piss in a bucket. And then outside the room,
• 41:56
  you know where there's that quartz pinhole letting in light,
• 42:00
  they put a statue of Jesus and in the statue
• 42:04
  they do lash markings and they do they dislocate his ankle,
• 42:08
  and they they put a nail hole through his wrist. Right,
• 42:12
  they they recreate the crucifixion and a statue and they
• 42:17
  literally take a photo over days. It's like, bro, I
• 42:22
  don't know mat I mean, listen, I get I get it.
• 42:26
  Like if you just say the resurrection could not have happened,
• 42:30
  then yeah, you'll you'll start. You got to come up
• 42:33
  with something, right, But to me, that's just it's just well,
• 42:37
  and they've done this and it doesn't look like the
• 42:39
  shroud looks like a photograph. And so that's what's unique
• 42:45
  about the shroud is the shroud does not look like
• 42:48
  a photograph when viewed with the naked eye. It looks
• 42:51
  like a stain. It only gets like amazing when you
• 42:54
  look at it in negative h So you can't recreate
• 42:58
  that because because photographs, they don't capture distance from the lens,
• 43:02
  they capture the reflective property of the thing they're taking
• 43:04
  a picture of. So you know, you have black hair,
• 43:07
  that's gonna look black. You have white skin, it's gonna
• 43:10
  look lighter on the cloth. Right, that's not at all
• 43:13
  what's going on with the shroud. It is literally there's
• 43:16
  an inverse, a nearly perfect inverse, between the darkness of
• 43:20
  the pixel and the distance from the body, and the
• 43:24
  only this is where it gets interesting. The only way
• 43:27
  you get that is if the body itself is the
• 43:33
  light source or the radiation source or whatever you want
• 43:37
  to think. So then be like, wait a second, wait
• 43:39
  a second. You know we've been we've been describing this
• 43:42
  thing as as a stain right and evidence of the crucifixion,
• 43:51
  because there is evidence of the crucive I mean, it
• 43:53
  perfectly fits the gospel economy. Some people will say, we'll
• 43:56
  use that as a criticism, like this is obviously they're
• 43:58
  just trying to show that the crucifixion happened right as
• 44:00
  a scam. But no, it's I mean, we've got the
• 44:03
  wrist wound, we've got the dislocated ankle, we've got the
• 44:06
  Roman flagrum, we've got the lance wound, and the side
• 44:11
  from the Roman soldier. And uh. But now if you're
• 44:15
  saying that the body cast this image onto the cloth, well,
• 44:21
  now you're talking about the resurrection. Is a crucifixion didn't
• 44:25
  cast that? Right? Yeah? And then that's where it gets
• 44:28
  gets wild and fun.
• 44:30
  Speaker 5: Well, because in order to say that, you have to
• 44:32
  presuppose that the resurrection didn't happen. You have to come
• 44:36
  into it knowing that that's that's an impossibility. So it
• 44:39
  has to be something else.
• 44:43
  Speaker 6: Back to the camera, back to the camera idea. Yeah, yeah, yeah.
• 44:46
  Speaker 5: And if now on the reverse image, assuming he was
• 44:50
  laying down on his back, you would think that there
• 44:54
  would be more gravity like indentation, or it would the
• 45:00
  image would be pressed up closer to the linen on
• 45:02
  the backside than the front. Do you know what I mean?
• 45:07
  Is that? Is that the case when you look at it,
• 45:08
  when you look at the reverse, the back image.
• 45:11
  Speaker 6: I totally, I totally know what you mean. There's a
• 45:14
  little less three D on the back image, which I
• 45:16
  think you could attribute to the fact that you know,
• 45:18
  he's being kind of prepped. The skin is being sort
• 45:20
  of pressed flat. So that checks out. That makes sense.
• 45:25
  Let me get to the image. So yeah, I mean
• 45:29
  I think you could say that it's kind of a
• 45:31
  matter of opinion, but to me, it looks like areas
• 45:34
  of his body are pressed down against the ground on
• 45:37
  the back image. So I don't know if he'll be
• 45:38
  able to So that's that's the back that isn't pot
• 45:42
  This is the worst way to do it. I can't
• 45:43
  even see what you can see.
• 45:47
  Speaker 5: Uh okay, that's the front image. There.
• 45:50
  Speaker 6: I don't know what you can see because I have
• 45:51
  to block the So okay, so here is this is
• 45:56
  the front image. This is the back image. Yeah, and
• 46:01
  so I mean you've got to think again, it's about
• 46:03
  it's about distance, not force. So like the nose is
• 46:08
  literally going to be touching the cloth, you know, just
• 46:10
  like the shoulder blades, and so like the pixel intensity
• 46:13
  of the nose and the shoulder blades are about the same.
• 46:14
  So yeah, it makes sense. I mean, it's It's tough
• 46:21
  to know what to make of it, honestly. I mean,
• 46:24
  we should probably go back and refute the carbonating stuff
• 46:26
  at some point, but I would like to maybe just
• 46:28
  talk about what we see. This is a great image.
• 46:31
  This isn't a different color contrast. It doesn't look the
• 46:34
  same on your camera, but you can really see the lashes.
• 46:39
  Speaker 5: Yeah, I've looked at it a lot closer before, so
• 46:43
  I'm familiar with the nail hole entry points and the
• 46:47
  crown of thorns, yeah, and the other markings on it.
• 46:54
  What would what would you say? What would you say
• 46:56
  prompted you to do your own research on it? What
• 46:59
  was so compelling or what changed? Was there something that
• 47:04
  stood out or something you read or something you saw
• 47:07
  that got you curious about it?
• 47:09
  Speaker 6: Definitely, definitely the sort of I wouldn't say consensus by
• 47:14
  any means, but just sort of a widespread refutation of
• 47:17
  the carbon dating based on, you know, a topic I'm
• 47:21
  familiar with, which is statistics. They had basically shown well,
• 47:28
  for first of all, the data from that Nature paper
• 47:31
  where they did the carbon dating was sealed for decades,
• 47:33
  which is kind of odd, but they eventually got it.
• 47:38
  And so with what they're able to figure out. One,
• 47:40
  is it's just you know, it's just incredibly contaminated. That's fine. Two,
• 47:46
  you know, it was carbondated by three different labs, and
• 47:51
  the three different labs got very different results. Now none
• 47:54
  of them got zero, you know, or none of them
• 47:56
  got thirty three a D you know, but they were
• 47:59
  way off, way off, and you know, significantly different. So
• 48:04
  technically they couldn't have even been combined into what's called
• 48:07
  a ninety five percent confidence interval. And so just like
• 48:11
  on a surface level, it's like, oh, that's kind of
• 48:14
  that's not rigorous. That's not you know, not only is
• 48:17
  it not rigorous, it's almost intentionally deceptive. It is intentionally
• 48:21
  deceptive because they used a methodology for combining results to
• 48:26
  form a confidence interval that they cannot they should not
• 48:30
  have used. You know, it didn't satisfy the requirements for
• 48:32
  that test. But even that, like that, that on its
• 48:36
  own is like kind of okay, you know, maybe it's
• 48:40
  really nine hundred years old not seven hundred, you know.
• 48:44
  So then what they figured out is they had also
• 48:52
  dated control samples. So they found a cloth that they
• 48:55
  knew for a fact was one thousand years old, right,
• 48:59
  because it was car into the coffin of the Egyptian mummy,
• 49:02
  you know whatever we like. However, they knew exactly like
• 49:05
  this was a thousand years old. Then they found another cloth,
• 49:08
  they knew it was exactly two thousand years old. The
• 49:10
  labs nailed it. Every single lab got the exact right answer.
• 49:15
  And so this is this is this is like I
• 49:20
  guess you would call interraidar reliability. All the labs are
• 49:25
  getting the same answers, and then it's valid because we
• 49:28
  know the date. So the labs are perfect right, and
• 49:32
  you would think, oh, this, this, this should make you
• 49:34
  believe in the carbon dating more. But the problem is
• 49:38
  that was not the case for the shroud. So you
• 49:41
  got to start like thinking backwards, like, Okay, we know
• 49:44
  the labs can nail the carbon date, right, however they
• 49:50
  can't nail the carbon date on the shroud. Why and
• 49:55
  so they start digging into it. Well, let me just
• 49:58
  first answer that question. If you're not all dating the
• 50:04
  same thing, it would make sense for you to get
• 50:07
  different results, right, and so long ago, I mean, we've
• 50:12
  known forever that the shroud has survived two fires, and
• 50:16
  so obviously the edges are were the most vulnerable and
• 50:20
  we know that the edges were burned, maybe even exposed
• 50:25
  to like near molten silver. It was stored in a
• 50:27
  silver casket and the room burned down. The silver casket
• 50:32
  protected it, but it like its singed the edges. And
• 50:35
  so it's known, strongly believed that the shroud has been
• 50:39
  repaired multiple times and the repairs were done to the edges. Okay,
• 50:45
  so if I cut and they did they cut from
• 50:48
  the edge. They cut a sample from the edge. And
• 50:50
  if I if I give a piece of that sample
• 50:53
  to three different labs and one lab has like ten
• 50:57
  percent repair and one lab fifty percent repair, and one
• 51:01
  lab has zero percent, they're gonna get vastly different answers.
• 51:08
  Even still, you could like push back and say, I
• 51:12
  don't know, at this point, it's getting tenuous, like you
• 51:14
  should I think retract the paper just based on that.
• 51:17
  But you could still kind of say, like, okay, there's
• 51:20
  some contamination, but I mean it's still not two thousand
• 51:25
  years old. So this other guy's name is marco'rianni's statistical expert.
• 51:31
  He's one of the few shroud researchers that's not like
• 51:33
  focused on the shroud. He does other stuff, you know,
• 51:35
  engineering and stats. He figured out he mapped exactly because
• 51:41
  you know, Arizona, Oxford and Zurich got samples of the shroud.
• 51:45
  He went in and he figured out exactly where they
• 51:47
  took their little sub samples, like they might have done
• 51:50
  one hundred measures from their tiny little sample. They take
• 51:53
  little pieces out right, he maps them. And when he
• 51:57
  mat and he gets the results from each location, and
• 52:00
  when he maps them, he realizes there's a linear effect.
• 52:04
  So as you go from one side to the other,
• 52:06
  the shroud gets younger. And why would that be, Well,
• 52:10
  I mean, if they repaired right here, as you move
• 52:13
  closer to the repair, the shroud is going to get younger, right,
• 52:17
  And so the type of relieving they did, you know,
• 52:20
  they're blending cotton and linen into existing linen, and so
• 52:25
  there's going to be you know, if there's a repair
• 52:27
  right here, there's going to be only some newer material.
• 52:30
  So it's gonna be older over here. And then as
• 52:32
  you get closer to the repair site, it gets younger
• 52:34
  and younger. And so there's no reason for there to
• 52:36
  be a linear change like that unless you know that's
• 52:40
  called systematic bias or systematic error. And at that point
• 52:45
  you just got to throw it all out. You know,
• 52:47
  we have no idea what we're dating at this point.
• 52:50
  It's like you if you carbon date a stick at
• 52:55
  the entrance to the pyramids and it's one hundred years old,
• 52:57
  that doesn't mean the pyramids one hundred years old or
• 52:59
  not dating the pyramid, you know. And so that's the case.
• 53:03
  That was the case. They basically didn' date the shout,
• 53:04
  And then later it came out that there's kind of
• 53:06
  a whistleblower actually at Arizona. They're like, yeah, there was cotton.
• 53:11
  We found cotton in there. It's a linen. Linen is
• 53:14
  made of flax fibers or shouldn't be cotton, right, but
• 53:16
  there's cotton right from Egypt, you know, or wherever you know.
• 53:20
  And uh so, yeah, if it was repaired in fifteen
• 53:24
  hundred and you're kind of getting a mix of repair
• 53:29
  and a mix of original, it kind of makes sense
• 53:30
  that you'd get, you know, one lab got nine hundred,
• 53:32
  one lab got fifteen hundred, one lab got twelve hundred.
• 53:35
  So so once I found out that the make because
• 53:39
  that that carbon dating in eighty nine, like put the
• 53:41
  nail in the coffin, like carbon dating holds a mystique
• 53:45
  in science, you know, and it was a Nature paper,
• 53:48
  so it's like, oh, yeah, it's fake, like once we
• 53:51
  carbon dated it, all right, at this point you're just
• 53:54
  superstitious or crazy if you believe it's real. Right, So yeah,
• 53:57
  once that happened, I was like, all right, let's see
• 53:59
  if this thing is real? You know, was it?
• 54:03
  Speaker 5: Do you think it's just the accumulation of actual scientific evidence?
• 54:09
  Speaker 6: Yeah?
• 54:09
  Speaker 5: I think this seems to be kind of a connecting
• 54:11
  theme between your books, you know, the scientific evidence that's
• 54:16
  pointing towards something more supernatural. Is it the empirical data
• 54:23
  or is it just is it more about the mystery
• 54:25
  of it?
• 54:26
  Speaker 6: That's I just think I just think it's a I
• 54:29
  think it's one of the great deceptions that has been
• 54:33
  perpetrated on humanity as to like we've been convinced that,
• 54:40
  like our rational minds can convince us that God doesn't exist,
• 54:46
  you know, like if if, if we we we can
• 54:48
  use science this tool for revealing the truth to actually
• 54:52
  prove that God isn't real, you know, And I just
• 54:56
  I think that is just so flawed and not correct,
• 54:59
  and growing up, you know, I believed that that you know,
• 55:07
  you know, come on, we went to the moon, you know,
• 55:11
  and then the Earth isn't six thousand years old, you know,
• 55:13
  which I which I believe still to this day that
• 55:15
  it's not. But the point is like you had on
• 55:18
  one side, like people who just believe, and then you
• 55:21
  have another side, these like crusaders of the truth who
• 55:25
  are just trying to figure out what's real. Those are
• 55:27
  the scientists, right, And then growing up you realize like, oh,
• 55:31
  that's total bs, that's not true, that's not what's going on.
• 55:35
  You know, there's there's deception, there's ego, there's manipulation, there's
• 55:40
  flat out lies. There's also like this emotional like repulsion
• 55:46
  to God and to the sciences. I think in a
• 55:49
  lot of cases, not always, but it's like what are
• 55:52
  we doing? Like this is this I'm in a religion,
• 55:55
  Like I'm in a cult me as an atheist scientist,
• 55:58
  like I'm in a I'm a I'm doing I don't know,
• 56:01
  I don't know what this is, but it's not the
• 56:02
  scientific method, like all the presuppositions, the axioms of science
• 56:07
  is like you can ask any question and if you
• 56:13
  get evidence that doesn't fit what you thought was going
• 56:16
  to be the case, and you throw that idea out
• 56:19
  and you accept this new idea, and you're constantly trying
• 56:22
  to disprove the things you believe, Like the idea of
• 56:25
  science is you're supposed to be trying to prove things
• 56:28
  wrong that everyone thinks are true. And when when all
• 56:33
  we had was religion and we didn't really have any science,
• 56:35
  like that was I guess fun for the scientists because
• 56:37
  it's like, well, we can prove the Earth isn't six
• 56:39
  thousand years old, like boom, we got one, you know.
• 56:41
  But then once you've kind of feel like you've explained
• 56:44
  everything and you developed this like dogma and you develop
• 56:47
  this orthodoxy and science, and then all of a sudden,
• 56:50
  it's like you can't challenge that, like no, no, no,
• 56:53
  like we don't do that anymore, Like you don't challenge
• 56:55
  the early Church fathers of science. You know. It's like
• 57:00
  saying like athanacious, you know, it's like Newton, right, Like
• 57:03
  you don't challenge Newton. He's he's an early Church father,
• 57:08
  you know, but dude, what have we learned? What have
• 57:10
  like look at the history of science, like everyone is
• 57:13
  so confident, and then all of a sudden a generation
• 57:16
  later is like, oh, can you believe. We used to
• 57:18
  think that. So now it's like, okay, we're in that
• 57:20
  moment right now, Like why can't we self reflect? How
• 57:23
  like why do we have to wait for a generation
• 57:25
  of scientists to die to say like maybe the soul exists?
• 57:29
  Like are we sure? Are we sure there's no such
• 57:31
  thing as free will? You know? That's kind of what
• 57:34
  book one was about. But this man, I just wanted
• 57:37
  to know, cause I mean, if it is real, like
• 57:42
  I don't think about what that means. That is one
• 57:46
  of the things I encountered, is uh. I think the
• 57:49
  Christians are pretty okay with the shroud not being real,
• 57:53
  Like it doesn't need to be real. The atheist, the skeptics,
• 57:58
  they need it to be fake, like it has to
• 58:02
  be fake. If it's real, they're wrong. You know, if
• 58:06
  it's fake, we could still be right, you know, So
• 58:08
  like I think they I think people try to make
• 58:10
  it sound like the believers are like they're subject to
• 58:14
  confirmation bias or they're you know that they're just believing
• 58:20
  what they want to believe. Is like no, no, no, no,
• 58:22
  Like if anyone's got a real dog in this hunt,
• 58:24
  this fight, it's the skeptics and you see that's it
• 58:27
  gets emotional. It gets emotional.
• 58:31
  Speaker 5: I think it's interesting that in history it's gone from
• 58:35
  this revered relic to this disproven hoax, and now it's
• 58:42
  managed to get back into the realm of unsolved mystery.
• 58:47
  It is at the very least we can't say it's
• 58:49
  fake outright anymore. So I guess that's that's progress. But
• 58:55
  I think religious people and scientifically minded people, they all
• 59:00
  have different agendas. That's what's so hard to get people
• 59:05
  to understand. Like you said, people assume scientists are just
• 59:11
  in it for the raw data and whatever the data shows,
• 59:15
  that's the theory that we're going with until some other
• 59:18
  data comes along to show otherwise. But you could take
• 59:23
  the same data. You can be looking at the same
• 59:26
  exact data and come away with different conclusions based on
• 59:30
  you know what paradigm you're trying to support.
• 59:34
  Speaker 6: It's it's so much more insidious than that. Even I'll
• 59:37
  come back to the shroud in a second. But like
• 59:41
  you know, if you've got a lab, you know you're
• 59:44
  getting let's say two million dollars a year from the
• 59:46
  government to run this research lab. You don't just get
• 59:50
  two million dollars and it's like, hey, go study stuff, friend,
• 59:54
  Like here you go, here's a little gift. Whatever you
• 59:57
  come back to us with, we're going to be thrilled about,
• 59:59
  you know, and and you're gonna you're gonna get your
• 1:00:02
  tenure and you're gonna no, no, no. It's like you
• 1:00:04
  write a proposal and you're pitching an idea and you
• 1:00:08
  need to you need to prove to them that your
• 1:00:11
  idea is going to be right, Like you need to
• 1:00:14
  have preliminary data, and you need to demonstrate that like
• 1:00:17
  you've done this before, and you're you literally have to
• 1:00:19
  prove to them. It's really hard to get grants you have.
• 1:00:22
  It's hard to get grants in the sciences. If you're
• 1:00:24
  in the social sciences, you just the weirder you are,
• 1:00:26
  the more money you get. But in like the hard sciences,
• 1:00:29
  it's difficult to get money. You have to prove that
• 1:00:31
  you're the best person in the world to answer this question,
• 1:00:35
  and so the question has to fit the existing dogma
• 1:00:38
  because the people who review your grant wrote the dogma,
• 1:00:42
  you know. So it's like you're Martin Luther. You're trying
• 1:00:44
  to get a grant from the Catholic Church. It's not happening, right,
• 1:00:47
  you're not in the club, and so you've got to
• 1:00:49
  you've got to be the orthodox, and you write your
• 1:00:51
  grant and then so then you get the money, you
• 1:00:54
  start doing the experiments, and you get a finding that
• 1:00:58
  doesn't fit your theory. You don't dedicate six months to
• 1:01:02
  writing that up. You just throw it out. And that
• 1:01:07
  sounds like way more deceptive than it probably is. It's
• 1:01:10
  like you're collecting all this data, you're just looking. You're
• 1:01:13
  looking what variables are related to what, what variables are
• 1:01:16
  related to what? And if you think this drug makes
• 1:01:19
  tumor smaller, but you know, the tumors got a little
• 1:01:22
  bit bigger. Actually, You're like, okay, well, I'm not gonna
• 1:01:24
  write a paper on that. But then over here you
• 1:01:26
  see the people who got the drug, the mice on
• 1:01:29
  average lived thirty days longer. That's what you're gonna write
• 1:01:33
  the paper on, right, But then you find out you know, like, oh,
• 1:01:37
  it only actually only works if you feed them this
• 1:01:40
  with it. Well, that doesn't really fit my hypothesis. So
• 1:01:42
  I'm not going to publish that cause there's like a
• 1:01:44
  report card that's do you know, It's like where you
• 1:01:48
  did you do it? Did you do it. You said
• 1:01:49
  you were going to do it. If you say no,
• 1:01:51
  I was wrong, And it's like, well, have fun in
• 1:01:56
  going back to medicine or teaching at the local high school.
• 1:01:59
  Like you're done. You know.
• 1:02:00
  Speaker 5: The money's almost like dealing with like the risk management
• 1:02:04
  of like a company or something. It was like, well,
• 1:02:06
  we don't want to put our name on this sort
• 1:02:08
  of research, you know, you know there's going to be
• 1:02:11
  some sort of dividend, some sort of payback or something.
• 1:02:17
  Speaker 6: And what makes it It's like they don't even have
• 1:02:20
  the excuse of being like greedy because it's not even
• 1:02:22
  like there's not there's not nearly as much financial incentives
• 1:02:26
  and science as there might be in like business, right.
• 1:02:30
  They just want the prestige. They just want to be
• 1:02:32
  part of the club. They don't want to lose their job.
• 1:02:34
  They don't want to lose tenure. Like I totally get it.
• 1:02:36
  I feel the same way at my job. But it
• 1:02:41
  is just I don't know, it's just anyway I got
• 1:02:43
  I got sidetracked.
• 1:02:44
  Speaker 5: But it's I like, I like that point, and that's
• 1:02:48
  kind of the key of what you're really talking about here,
• 1:02:51
  even though it seems sort of shroud adjacent. It's the it.
• 1:02:55
  It is sort of the overall theme of you know,
• 1:02:59
  why to people believe what they believe? And are people
• 1:03:03
  after the truth or are they after you know, just
• 1:03:06
  confirmation of what they already believe?
• 1:03:10
  Speaker 6: And people are people are People are motivated by things
• 1:03:14
  that you don't think they'd be motivated by, like from
• 1:03:17
  the outside looking in, Like I think people think like
• 1:03:19
  the scientists are like, oh, we got to prove these
• 1:03:22
  dumb hillbillies wrong about this and that. It's like no,
• 1:03:25
  they just they all want to be part of the club.
• 1:03:26
  They all want to fit in. It all feels good.
• 1:03:29
  It all feels like good motives, Like I don't want
• 1:03:31
  to rock the boat. I don't want to I don't
• 1:03:33
  want to look like an idiot with some new idea.
• 1:03:35
  You know, it's all very like honestly kind of like
• 1:03:40
  it's kind of lame.
• 1:03:41
  Speaker 5: Like this is how I kind of feel about NASA
• 1:03:44
  and stuff too. I Mean we're constantly, you know, putting
• 1:03:47
  people in orbit and running experiments supposedly in space, but
• 1:03:52
  what what is what's come from all these experiments in
• 1:03:56
  at the space station. It just seems like we're still
• 1:04:00
  like breaking rocks open.
• 1:04:02
  Speaker 6: Yeah, I mean you kind of that kind of hurts
• 1:04:04
  me a little bit because it's like, as a kid,
• 1:04:06
  I just let you know. It's so fascinated. But like
• 1:04:08
  the Space Shuttle and the Space station, and I know
• 1:04:12
  they do experiments. I know they've done some stuff. I mean,
• 1:04:14
  I'm sure, but you I mean that statement applies very
• 1:04:18
  broadly to like all of medicine, Like like, oh, so
• 1:04:22
  the average life expectancy is way longer now, right, It's like,
• 1:04:26
  oh no, actually it's five years shorter than it was
• 1:04:28
  a few decades ago. And like, oh, so we've spent
• 1:04:31
  billions and billions of dollars on Alzheimer's, Like we have
• 1:04:33
  a we have good treatments and cures. Nope, not zero.
• 1:04:38
  There are a couple of new FDA approved treatments, but
• 1:04:41
  they have pretty bad outcomes and they have horrible side effects.
• 1:04:44
  And so yeah, no, it's like cancer is cured. I'm sure, right,
• 1:04:48
  the Human Genome Project Crisper, Like, surely we've cured cancer. No,
• 1:04:53
  it's actually skyrocketing the rates of cancer right now in
• 1:04:56
  our society. So I do think at some point, like
• 1:04:59
  there does need to be some accountability. That said, I'm
• 1:05:02
  a scientist, I like it I like trying to figure
• 1:05:05
  stuff out. It's fun. I just I think somewhere along
• 1:05:08
  the line, it's like it became a religion. Like like
• 1:05:13
  there's like this like like like just turn your nose
• 1:05:17
  up at anyone who like has any open minded questions,
• 1:05:20
  like what you just said right now, Like if you
• 1:05:22
  were I mean, if you said that at like a
• 1:05:24
  at a you know, a cal Tech conference, everyone will
• 1:05:27
  be like, oh, get him out of here. You'd never
• 1:05:31
  be out of the business. You know.
• 1:05:33
  Speaker 5: It's about maintaining the status quo. And like you said,
• 1:05:36
  you're you're a tenured professor at M I T or something.
• 1:05:40
  You're not going to get behind the young guy that
• 1:05:44
  you know is questioning your theories or whatever.
• 1:05:46
  Speaker 6: Absolutely, absolutely it is sad, you know. I do. I
• 1:05:51
  listen to like a lot of you know, podcasts Unfringe,
• 1:05:55
  you know, and other podcasts, and it's like science is
• 1:05:59
  just at this point, like people are straight up clients
• 1:06:03
  scientists like occultists and alchemists and Satan worship person It's
• 1:06:07
  like probably some you know, but like really I think
• 1:06:11
  it's just it's just a bunch of people. I just
• 1:06:13
  want to fit in. They just want a job. They
• 1:06:15
  just want to fit in. They don't care, like they
• 1:06:19
  maybe it's something they don't care, they just don't feel
• 1:06:21
  like they don't they convinced themselves that they're helping the world.
• 1:06:27
  And why would they want to convince themselves otherwise, Like
• 1:06:29
  why you'd have you have to be willing to like reflect,
• 1:06:33
  search your soul, be humble. I think that's why science
• 1:06:37
  could use some Jesus like just got be really humble.
• 1:06:42
  But the whole system is like designed to make you
• 1:06:44
  not humble. You have to pretend like you know it all,
• 1:06:47
  Like if you want to get promoted, if you want
• 1:06:49
  to get a grant, like you can't have any humility,
• 1:06:52
  Like you have to be like I am the expert
• 1:06:54
  on this. I have shown this is how it works.
• 1:06:56
  I've demonstrated in my lab and my publications at Nature
• 1:07:00
  and Jamma and that this chemical cascade is what drives
• 1:07:05
  this enzyme. And I know this for a fact, Like
• 1:07:08
  the second you're like, man, life's a mystery, isn't it?
• 1:07:10
  You know the way the architect built us? And who
• 1:07:15
  really knows how this works? And who really knows what
• 1:07:17
  the downstream consequences will be of introducing this molecule? You know,
• 1:07:21
  it looks promising, but maybe it will cause cancer in
• 1:07:23
  twenty years. Like, you're not going to win. You know,
• 1:07:28
  I've become so cynical. Sorry, I could rant forever.
• 1:07:30
  Speaker 5: When I think of places like sir, in the large
• 1:07:33
  Chadrin Collider, and it's the most advanced technology that we have,
• 1:07:40
  and we're breaking atoms into smaller particles and smaller and
• 1:07:48
  smaller particles. But then somewhere there it gets lost, like
• 1:07:51
  why why are we doing this? What are we actually studying?
• 1:07:55
  What's what's the benefit to humanity of discovering that, you know,
• 1:08:00
  a proton is made up of smaller particles and get that.
• 1:08:05
  Speaker 6: That collider is the most extreme example of human stupidity
• 1:08:08
  I've ever seen in my life. You're so right, But if.
• 1:08:11
  Speaker 5: You if you dig a little deeper and you find
• 1:08:14
  out the project developers and stuff and some of the
• 1:08:17
  statements that they've made. Well, once we figure out, you know,
• 1:08:22
  how to break these particles apart, and then we figure
• 1:08:25
  out where they're going when they disappear off our sensors
• 1:08:29
  and then they come back, then they then you realize, well,
• 1:08:33
  maybe they're actually working towards this theory of interdimensional particles.
• 1:08:43
  If we figure out that that we have this quantum entanglement,
• 1:08:48
  then can we, you know, can we piggyback some sort
• 1:08:52
  of data or message on one of these particles, send
• 1:08:56
  it somewhere, retrieve it. Can we establish some sort of communication.
• 1:09:02
  I think they've already proven that they can. They can
• 1:09:04
  transmit data across some of these sub atomic particles.
• 1:09:12
  Speaker 6: I've been I've been so reluctant to get all the
• 1:09:15
  way to what I'm about to say, But it's the
• 1:09:18
  only thing that makes sense, man. I mean, I've been
• 1:09:21
  talking to you in kind of my reserved mode, you know,
• 1:09:24
  for some reason, I've talked to you before. I don't
• 1:09:26
  know what I'm talking to. I've been talking to you
• 1:09:27
  in like my when I go podcast with somebody I've
• 1:09:30
  never met before. So now now now that I really
• 1:09:33
  think about it, dude, there's no explanation for the LHC
• 1:09:39
  other than like we're trying to fix summon demons or something.
• 1:09:42
  I don't know what is going on. There's no explanation
• 1:09:45
  other than like communing with entities that are telling us
• 1:09:49
  to do this, Like I just don't understand like the
• 1:09:54
  scale of the project, and for what reason, for what reason?
• 1:10:00
  And and honestly, it's like, then you see these like weird
• 1:10:04
  festivals and ship they do. Have you seen these? Oh
• 1:10:09
  my god? Yeah yeah, it's like what like we're sacrificing goats.
• 1:10:13
  Like we have an episode Unhappy Fools about it way
• 1:10:16
  back and alfraid of My co host is like you
• 1:10:19
  gotta look at this, And back then I was like, no,
• 1:10:21
  afraid to like stop, like these are professionals, dude, Like
• 1:10:25
  these are just scientists who want to make the world
• 1:10:27
  a better place. They're fascinating by physics and particles. And
• 1:10:31
  and then I play this video and it's like a
• 1:10:33
  man in a goat costume like having sex with a
• 1:10:36
  pregnant woman, not really you know, acting it out, and
• 1:10:40
  there's like people dressed up as babies with antlers, and
• 1:10:43
  and like the president of Switzerland is just sitting there like,
• 1:10:47
  oh this is fantastic, you know, and people.
• 1:10:49
  Speaker 5: Is this the I think was the Gothard Tunnel or something.
• 1:10:53
  Speaker 6: Yeah, it's like why what are we what are we doing?
• 1:10:58
  Speaker 5: I mean, we we dug a tunnel through a mountain.
• 1:11:02
  I mean, but what's the larger signet? What are these people?
• 1:11:06
  What's the you know?
• 1:11:08
  Speaker 6: Yeah, it's kind of but it is like, what are
• 1:11:12
  what are we doing?
• 1:11:14
  Speaker 4: Now?
• 1:11:15
  Speaker 6: There's more human explanations though, Like there's a book called
• 1:11:17
  Nobel Dreams by Gary Tawbs, and he follows this main
• 1:11:23
  guy who's basically in charge of the collider for years,
• 1:11:29
  and he's fully planning to write this like complimentary book
• 1:11:34
  about this genius, you know, this eccentric gene larger than life,
• 1:11:39
  just personality who's just deciphering the mysteries of the cosmos
• 1:11:45
  and the forces that stitch the atoms together, and he
• 1:11:49
  just discovers he's a total fraud. He's just making it up.
• 1:11:53
  He's lying, he's just lying about the data. And it's
• 1:11:57
  like it could just be that it could just be
• 1:12:01
  human stupidity. They somehow managed to like get themselves into
• 1:12:06
  this position, and they've got to convince people it's important.
• 1:12:10
  So the grants keep coming. And but I don't know,
• 1:12:13
  because now they're like building bigger colliders, and at some
• 1:12:17
  point I do suspect that the that the god of
• 1:12:23
  this world is is somehow involved.
• 1:12:25
  Speaker 5: You know, I'm sure he is. Tell you what, Let's
• 1:12:31
  take a quick break and we'll be back with more.
• 1:12:34
  Trevor Loman on the Shroud of turin.
• 1:12:47
  Speaker 7: The Shroud of Turin was in the news.
• 1:12:50
  Speaker 5: Yeah they a they AI did it.
• 1:12:53
  Speaker 7: Yeah, they're trying to say that it is more likely
• 1:12:55
  to be a medieval painting of some kind. This guy
• 1:13:00
  searcher called Cicero Marias published a digital modeling study proposing
• 1:13:05
  that the shrouds image could have been produced by pressing
• 1:13:08
  linen against a low relief sculpture, so like a sculpture
• 1:13:13
  that's kind of flat. His argument, uh is based on
• 1:13:16
  the idea that if it had been on a person,
• 1:13:19
  the features would have been much wider. And he reproduced
• 1:13:22
  this by putting now his.
• 1:13:23
  Speaker 5: He admittedly the video, he's I don't have a video.
• 1:13:28
  Here is there video with a the AAI did.
• 1:13:36
  Speaker 1: Uh?
• 1:13:37
  Speaker 6: I believe I believe me.
• 1:13:40
  Speaker 2: Well.
• 1:13:41
  Speaker 5: Now there are some.
• 1:13:44
  Speaker 7: Older critics critics of it uh, saying that that if
• 1:13:52
  the Early Church had documented, if the early Church had
• 1:13:58
  encountered this, they surely would have docum the people that
• 1:14:01
  were around at the time, and none of them mentioned
• 1:14:03
  this shroud uh. And they also say the early Church
• 1:14:06
  does that the Jewish practice at the time was to
• 1:14:10
  wrap the person in two claws, not one, so there'd
• 1:14:12
  be two of these things, and then why would the executioners.
• 1:14:17
  Speaker 5: Uh, you know, the Romans. Why would they allow them
• 1:14:19
  to take it away?
• 1:14:20
  Speaker 7: That was the criticism from the early Church of this
• 1:14:25
  shroud not being a valid relic.
• 1:14:29
  Speaker 5: Now I'm not saying what you're talking about. I'm not
• 1:14:36
  Why can't you believe in the Lord? I do believe
• 1:14:40
  in the Lord.
• 1:14:41
  Speaker 6: I don't.
• 1:14:41
  Speaker 7: I don't put faith in any kind of relics of.
• 1:14:46
  Speaker 5: H And we're back. You've been listening to Ministry X
• 1:15:27
  on Fringe Radio Network, and we're gonna pick up where
• 1:15:32
  we left off with Trevor Lohman.
• 1:15:43
  Speaker 6: Are you doing okay? Yeah, okay. So, so I just
• 1:15:48
  want to talk about the image itself. So there are
• 1:15:52
  there's forensic information in the image that is not just random.
• 1:15:58
  It's not It kind of displays a level of clinical
• 1:16:02
  anatomy that you know, you wouldn't expect a fourteenth century
• 1:16:08
  artist to have now, and people will say, well, maybe
• 1:16:10
  it was da Vinci, you know, and it's like, all right,
• 1:16:13
  I'll give you that, but then you need to refute
• 1:16:15
  the carbon dating because Da Vinci wasn't born for one
• 1:16:17
  hundred and fifty years later, and the air in the
• 1:16:20
  carbon dating airs it to be younger. Right, So like,
• 1:16:25
  so it's it's either thirteen twenty five or earlier. It's
• 1:16:29
  not like maybe it's fourteen fifty or whenever DaVinci was born.
• 1:16:32
  So but then people will be like, well, he's an
• 1:16:35
  ascendant templar master who can travel through time. And it's like, okay,
• 1:16:38
  well then now you just don't want to believe in
• 1:16:40
  the resurrection, man, what are you doing? And that's fine,
• 1:16:43
  just say it, just own it, you know. So, so
• 1:16:46
  there are some anatomical details that are pretty fascinating. So
• 1:16:49
  the Roman flagri and lashmarks are you know, pretty detailed,
• 1:16:54
  pretty highly accurate. The wound is through the metacarpals. We
• 1:16:58
  think it's tough to say because we're looking at the
• 1:17:02
  back of his hand, so we assume we're looking at
• 1:17:04
  an exit wound from the nail. But it's most likely
• 1:17:09
  went through his carpals, which is interesting because every medieval
• 1:17:15
  depiction we have with the crucifixion, the nails are going
• 1:17:17
  through his hands. It doesn't it's not like a smoking gun.
• 1:17:22
  But it's just if a medieval painter painted the shroud,
• 1:17:28
  you would expect him to paint it in a way
• 1:17:30
  consistent with all of the other medieval art and he didn't.
• 1:17:34
  Most medieval art has a footrest, not all, but most
• 1:17:37
  has a foot rest and piercing through the hands. So
• 1:17:43
  you know, people will say, well, you know, we don't
• 1:17:46
  know for sure how romans to crucifixions, and that's not
• 1:17:49
  the point. The point is why why did he choose
• 1:17:52
  to paint it that way? So that's point one. Point
• 1:17:55
  two is his thumb is in like a really odd position.
• 1:17:59
  It's you can't even do it as a living human, right,
• 1:18:02
  you got to be You'd have to curl your thumb
• 1:18:04
  up into your hand and then hyper extend this distal
• 1:18:07
  interfalangel joint right here in this weird kind of position,
• 1:18:11
  so you wouldn't see the thumb, you would just see
• 1:18:13
  like the thumb tip. And that's pretty consistent with either
• 1:18:18
  potentially like a nerve injury in the wrist or a
• 1:18:22
  tendon tear like flex or Bliss's longest in the wrist,
• 1:18:25
  which obviously in nail traveling through the risk could do.
• 1:18:29
  And it's like, how would this artist know to do that?
• 1:18:32
  It's just an odd detail. Yeah, there's very specific detail,
• 1:18:37
  very specific detail. There's also serum rings on the wounds,
• 1:18:41
  and what that means is the blood had started to coagulate,
• 1:18:45
  but hadn't finished coagulating when the when the linen touched
• 1:18:49
  the body, and so like, if if this was a
• 1:18:52
  painter or whatever, it's not paint, you know, it's not paint.
• 1:18:55
  But if this were an artist, well I should probably
• 1:18:58
  tell you. The only pause of little man made explanation
• 1:19:02
  is that this individual was able to make like a
• 1:19:04
  really act, you know, a a statue, let's say, and
• 1:19:11
  he puts all this into, all this detail into it.
• 1:19:14
  He gets this weird anatomical details and like drapes the
• 1:19:20
  linen over so you get the front in the back image,
• 1:19:23
  and then maybe like somehow put like an acidic wash
• 1:19:30
  on the statue before he did it, so there was
• 1:19:33
  like acid between the linen and the face and the body,
• 1:19:37
  and then like rubbed it, you know, to kind of
• 1:19:40
  smear it in somehow, and maybe there was like a
• 1:19:43
  little pigment dissolved in the acid maybe and then and
• 1:19:49
  then then after that applied the blood. There's many different
• 1:19:53
  problems with that. One is we just haven't been able
• 1:19:56
  to do it. There's this guy named Carla Shelley who's tried.
• 1:19:58
  He's gotten I mean, he's made things sort of approximate
• 1:20:00
  the shout, but they're not. It's not the same by
• 1:20:03
  any stretch of the imagination. The other problem is the
• 1:20:06
  image didn't transfer where there were blood stains, so this
• 1:20:09
  person would have had to apply the blood before knowing
• 1:20:13
  exactly where to put it, before he placed it onto
• 1:20:16
  this statue or whatever. It's like, okay, maybe, but he
• 1:20:21
  would also have to do that in a way to
• 1:20:25
  mimic the forensics we would expect after the crucifixion, which
• 1:20:29
  is the serum edges, because if you just put fresh
• 1:20:33
  blood on cloth, there's not gonna be seerum rings. If
• 1:20:36
  you put you know, fully coagulated or nearly fully coagulated
• 1:20:40
  blood on the cloth, there's not gonna be seerum rings.
• 1:20:42
  It needs to have like he started to coagulate and
• 1:20:46
  then done. Anyway, it just seems very unlikely.
• 1:20:49
  Speaker 5: So that's like what you're talking about is like sort
• 1:20:51
  of the plasma leaking exactly, Okay.
• 1:20:55
  Speaker 6: Exactly, the wound contracts the blood, you know, as as
• 1:20:58
  it coagulates, it contracts, but the um gets left behind.
• 1:21:01
  You know, blood plasma's erum, you know, similar, and so
• 1:21:05
  it's it's it's a forensic detail, like you know, it's
• 1:21:09
  not people who are like, oh, the shroud's fink. It's like, listen, dude,
• 1:21:12
  people who know more than you are pretty confident that
• 1:21:16
  it's real, and then people who know more than you
• 1:21:18
  think it's false. Like it's this is not a simple answer,
• 1:21:22
  you know. Forensic experts have studied this thing, Chemists have
• 1:21:25
  studied this thing, physicists of study, engineers, I would say
• 1:21:30
  the vast majority of scientific peer review papers and scientists
• 1:21:34
  do not think it was made by man. And so anyway,
• 1:21:39
  so there's there's that detail. Also, his ankle is dislocated,
• 1:21:44
  not you know, we don't we don't know if anything's broken.
• 1:21:47
  There's no evidence of broken bones, but his ankle is dislocated.
• 1:21:50
  It's kind of an odd detail too, because like in
• 1:21:52
  a lot of the medieval art, there's sort of this
• 1:21:54
  foot wrest. There's a name for it, I forget the name.
• 1:21:56
  Some Roman crucifixion did use it, not all, and there's
• 1:22:00
  a foot rest, and so in this case it does
• 1:22:02
  seem like his ankle is dislocated to be nailed to
• 1:22:05
  the cross, which is something we think would have happened
• 1:22:08
  in some Roman crucifixions. It's just kind of an odd detail. Also, Uh,
• 1:22:16
  there is a the spear wound and people debate this,
• 1:22:19
  but it does. It seems like it's a different type
• 1:22:22
  of blood, like a plural exit it, which just means
• 1:22:25
  like it's fluid and blood mixed together, which is recorded
• 1:22:29
  in the gospel when he's stabbed with the spear. You know,
• 1:22:32
  fluid and water, which is consistent with like plural effusion
• 1:22:36
  from dying of a heart attack, which is you know
• 1:22:39
  what a lot of folks, there's a there's a something
• 1:22:43
  at Calvary. I forget the name of the book, but
• 1:22:44
  there's a book about the shroud and it's a it's
• 1:22:46
  a physician and he talks about kind of deciphers what
• 1:22:49
  he thinks the cause of death was based on this stuff.
• 1:22:51
  And and there's there's red blood cells in the blood stains,
• 1:22:57
  there's creating it, and there's this argue meant that there's
• 1:23:00
  really high levels of kraatnine and billy ruben and albumen
• 1:23:04
  and these other compounds that would be consistent with like
• 1:23:08
  extreme dehydration and end of life type of things.
• 1:23:13
  Speaker 1: Yeah.
• 1:23:14
  Speaker 6: Man, it's just uh, it's it could be real, man,
• 1:23:18
  I mean that's how I feel about it.
• 1:23:20
  Speaker 5: Could it could when you look at all the when
• 1:23:21
  you look at all the evidence, it's definitely evidence of
• 1:23:25
  something very mysterious at the very least, and I mean
• 1:23:30
  pretty compelling that it could actually be the burial cloth
• 1:23:34
  of Christ, because yeah, to me, it's it seems the
• 1:23:38
  most compelling thing is, like, no one's been able to
• 1:23:41
  reproduce anything similar before or after this single piece of cloth.
• 1:23:47
  Speaker 6: Yeah, even if it was real, you would expect that
• 1:23:50
  we'd be able to make it today. Yeah, like even
• 1:23:53
  if it was real, because we can look at it
• 1:23:54
  and we can say, okay, we'll make it exactly like this,
• 1:23:57
  But but no one's been able to reproduce all of
• 1:23:59
  this love of detail. How could you? I mean, how
• 1:24:03
  could you? It's just the fibers. The linen fibers are
• 1:24:08
  colored circumferentially a single layer, right, So they're not colored
• 1:24:13
  just on one side, which would be the case with paint. Right,
• 1:24:16
  it's the cellulose wall. The linen fibers discolored in the
• 1:24:20
  imaged area, just that outer cortex front and back, like
• 1:24:24
  all the way around, and just one layer. It's like
• 1:24:27
  twenty nanometers, right. And they've done sticky tape samples and
• 1:24:32
  found pigments but they're just like random pigments. They're not
• 1:24:34
  even really in the imaged areas. It's because this thing
• 1:24:37
  is contaminated. I mean, people used to press paintings up
• 1:24:40
  against it to get them blessed and stuff like there's
• 1:24:44
  all sorts of things. They found DNA from marine worms
• 1:24:47
  in it. Like it's just people just have no concept
• 1:24:50
  of like the stuff that exists in our environments. Like,
• 1:24:52
  of course you're gonna find these traces, but when you
• 1:24:55
  actually study the image, it's not painted. That brings this
• 1:24:58
  brings me to the weirdest art. This is the part
• 1:25:02
  I'm least married to. Like, if it came out that
• 1:25:05
  this is just no way this is the case, I'd
• 1:25:07
  be totally fine with that. It is not like a
• 1:25:10
  big part of my belief or anything. But I was
• 1:25:13
  talking to one of the main scientists who researches this.
• 1:25:16
  His name is Julia Fanti. Many of the research papers,
• 1:25:22
  he's the senior author, the last If you're the last
• 1:25:25
  author on a research paper, you're the most bad ass. Basically,
• 1:25:28
  it's kind of the opposite of what you might think.
• 1:25:30
  And then the next best is the first author. He
• 1:25:33
  does all the work or she does all the work,
• 1:25:35
  but because you did it in this senior author's lab
• 1:25:38
  with his funding, he's at the end, right, So Julia
• 1:25:41
  Fanti is like at the end of most of these
• 1:25:42
  or the front of most of these. And uh, he's
• 1:25:46
  been trying to recreate I mean, they've tried to recreate
• 1:25:48
  this with lasers, they've tried to recreate it. Nothing really
• 1:25:51
  seems to work. He discovered that. Okay, so you've got
• 1:25:56
  this long piece of cloth. You have the front of Jesus.
• 1:26:01
  The fabric folds over his head so you get his
• 1:26:04
  hair like marks of his hair, and then hit the
• 1:26:07
  back so you see the front in the back of
• 1:26:10
  him when you're looking straight at the cloth. But if
• 1:26:12
  you were to walk around the back of the linen,
• 1:26:15
  that same image, like not even really perceptible to the
• 1:26:20
  human eye, just barely, is also on the other side.
• 1:26:25
  And so he calls this double superficiality because it's superficial.
• 1:26:30
  I mean, we all agree one of the biggest mysteries
• 1:26:32
  is how it's so superficial. But it's superficial on both sides.
• 1:26:37
  And so in his lap, he's tried to recreate this,
• 1:26:40
  and the only way he can recreate it is with
• 1:26:42
  something called corona discharge. It's plasma basically, you know those
• 1:26:46
  glass plasma balls that like it'll be like glowing pink
• 1:26:51
  or purple, and then you put your hand to it
• 1:26:52
  and all the electricity goes to your hand. Yeah. So
• 1:26:57
  a lot of people have proposed that UV like is
• 1:27:01
  what created the image because it reacts with the cellulose
• 1:27:04
  in the linen and it would discolor it slightly. The
• 1:27:08
  problem is, like, if you imagine your face glowing like,
• 1:27:13
  it's just going to be a distorted blur, right, it's
• 1:27:17
  just shining in every direction. Right, So what's interesting about plasma, Well,
• 1:27:22
  first of all, he can do double superficial images with plasma.
• 1:27:26
  Like he could take a gear, put it on linen
• 1:27:29
  and apply plasma to starts to the gear. Remove the gear,
• 1:27:32
  and you have an image of a gear on both
• 1:27:34
  sides of the thing. So that is experimentally interesting. Scientist
• 1:27:38
  should be interested in that. But also because the image
• 1:27:42
  transfer occurs along the magnetic field lines or the electrical
• 1:27:48
  field lines. So the way a plasma ball works is
• 1:27:52
  you need us in a miitter which is the sphere,
• 1:27:55
  and a receiver which is the glass ball. So in
• 1:27:58
  the case of Jesus, if you're like looking at him
• 1:28:01
  from the top down at his head, his head, his body.
• 1:28:05
  It's like that smaller emitter, and the linen on top
• 1:28:09
  is like the receiver. And so if Jesus is acting
• 1:28:11
  as an energy source, you would expect the energy to
• 1:28:14
  ready out towards the linen and the UV lights, which
• 1:28:18
  is emitted by plasma, would travel along an electric the
• 1:28:21
  electrical field line. And so you could kind of reproduce
• 1:28:25
  in the labs sort of they've never done anything like
• 1:28:28
  this face, but you can sort of do a pretty
• 1:28:32
  direct image transfer that's not distorted. And so I'd say
• 1:28:36
  the closest we've ever come to a like man made
• 1:28:41
  reproduction of the shroud. And I don't think they were
• 1:28:45
  doing plasma lightning and twelve hundreds thirteen hundreds.
• 1:28:51
  Speaker 5: And yeah, I mean that's with our modern understanding of
• 1:28:56
  electrical fields.
• 1:28:57
  Speaker 6: And I'll show you this is kind of this is
• 1:29:00
  kind of the diagram of what that basically what it
• 1:29:06
  would look like. I don't know if you can see that,
• 1:29:07
  but yeah, but you know he's got You can transfer
• 1:29:12
  images from like gears to the linen.
• 1:29:16
  Speaker 5: Now, does that only work because the gear is metal?
• 1:29:19
  Speaker 6: No, you can do with non metallic stuff too. You
• 1:29:21
  just you just need well no, I'm sorry, sort of.
• 1:29:26
  I mean because the thing the thing here is that
• 1:29:28
  the you need to you're going to transfer the image
• 1:29:32
  of the the emitter, right, and so so yeah, met metal,
• 1:29:36
  you need the metal so you can turn the metal
• 1:29:38
  into an emitter. Right. But in the in the case
• 1:29:41
  of the resurrection, I mean, what we're saying is that
• 1:29:43
  Jesus is the emitter, right, Like there's there's just this
• 1:29:47
  intense burst of essentially energy electricity. So that's what creates
• 1:29:53
  plasma at the moment of the resurrection. Mm hmm. It's
• 1:29:57
  a little weird though, because I mean you would, in fact,
• 1:30:02
  something like that might have been reported when you know,
• 1:30:04
  Jesus performed resurrections of other human beings. So you know,
• 1:30:09
  we don't know. It's just it's just a hypothesis. I
• 1:30:12
  mean a lot of Christians don't like the shroud because
• 1:30:15
  they feel like it contradicts the gospel accounts. I don't.
• 1:30:20
  I certainly don't feel like that's the case. I mean,
• 1:30:23
  the most I you know, the linen has talked about
• 1:30:26
  in all four Gospels. I believe you know that Joseph
• 1:30:29
  a Verimathea maybe not in Mark. But Joseph a Verimathea
• 1:30:33
  buys this nice linen that he's buried in. But there's
• 1:30:39
  like this one line in certain translations of John where
• 1:30:44
  he sees the strips of linen lying in the two right.
• 1:30:47
  But if you if you read it, and if you
• 1:30:49
  read different versions, he he's saying that there's multiple linens. Yes,
• 1:30:54
  he's mentioning strips of linens. I mean, maybe there are
• 1:30:56
  strips of linens tied around the body. But he's all
• 1:31:00
  so mentioning the face cloth, which some people think is
• 1:31:03
  the Sudarium of Oviedo in Spain. There's some good reason
• 1:31:06
  to believe that. Interestingly, that is probably two thousand years old,
• 1:31:11
  so that kind of is corroborating, and there's some alignments
• 1:31:15
  with the bloodstains between the shroud and this. And interestingly,
• 1:31:20
  the face cloth is folded up to the side, separate
• 1:31:24
  from the linen. And John and Matthew they mentioned this specifically,
• 1:31:28
  I think just John does. And that's interesting because it
• 1:31:32
  almost sort of implies, you know, the face had to
• 1:31:34
  be covered by Jewish law, especially if it was like
• 1:31:40
  disfigured or wounded or distorted. And so the idea is
• 1:31:44
  sort of that his face was covered on his way
• 1:31:48
  to the tomb. But then the question is, well, then
• 1:31:51
  how did his face transfer to the cloth if his
• 1:31:53
  head was covered, And so the fact that John specifically
• 1:31:57
  says that the face covering was folded separate from the
• 1:32:01
  other linen, it kind of implies that they took it
• 1:32:03
  off before they put the trout on him and set
• 1:32:07
  it aside, right, because because otherwise what you have to
• 1:32:10
  believe is that Jesus resurrected and then folded the face
• 1:32:13
  cloth and placed it separate from everything else and just
• 1:32:16
  left the other linen's lying there. It's just kind of
• 1:32:18
  an odd detail, but interesting. I read John, and I
• 1:32:22
  don't see anything in John that says the shroud of
• 1:32:25
  turn can't be real. What people will say is like, well,
• 1:32:27
  wouldn't the disciples have noticed this? Like, but I just
• 1:32:32
  I would have to remind people that this doesn't look
• 1:32:35
  terribly impressive to the naked eye. It looks like a stain.
• 1:32:40
  And so if you're going into a tomb and you
• 1:32:42
  see a cloth with a stain, like you're just thinking, like,
• 1:32:44
  this is a stain from the from a dead body
• 1:32:47
  that was in this cloth, right, and the other idea
• 1:32:50
  is that actually it's probably gotten darker over the years.
• 1:32:55
  It's now fading again. But most likely like the UV
• 1:32:59
  light messed with the chemical structure of the cellulose and
• 1:33:03
  there was no visible image for some time later, the
• 1:33:07
  ages differently, you know, the untouched cellulose ages differently from
• 1:33:11
  the radiated cellulos So it could could have been one
• 1:33:13
  hundred years or whatever before there was really a visible image.
• 1:33:16
  So you can tell him fascinated by this. This is
• 1:33:20
  the end of it, though, we just can't know. Julio
• 1:33:24
  Julia Fonte. He emailed me and he said, because he
• 1:33:27
  could tell he was excited about this, I think, and
• 1:33:28
  he's like, listen, all of the evidence suggests it's real,
• 1:33:33
  all of it. But there's no tests you can do.
• 1:33:36
  There's no research you can find if you google hard enough,
• 1:33:39
  there's there never will be an experiment we can do
• 1:33:42
  to prove that this is evidence of the Crucifixion resurrection.
• 1:33:49
  I thought that was cool coming from him, because he
• 1:33:51
  wants it to be real. You know, he's Catholic, he
• 1:33:53
  studied it his whole life, so I thought that was
• 1:33:56
  a good thing for him to say. And he added,
• 1:33:58
  you know, in the same way that no one can
• 1:34:01
  know for certain. Logically I'm not talking about with faith,
• 1:34:05
  but logically that God is real, Like at some point
• 1:34:08
  it is just sort of you have to deploy your
• 1:34:10
  free will and say, like I see evidence for God,
• 1:34:14
  I believe God exists. You know, I thought that was cool.
• 1:34:17
  I think that's a good way to look at the shot.
• 1:34:19
  It's like it's like the best evidence we could possibly
• 1:34:22
  hope for, and that's maybe that just has to be
• 1:34:24
  good enough.
• 1:34:25
  Speaker 1: You know.
• 1:34:26
  Speaker 5: Well, I think it's interesting and I'm curious now if
• 1:34:29
  if you've talked to is it Peter about that. He's
• 1:34:34
  the one that Jesser talks about. Yeah, that talks about
• 1:34:39
  the Knights of the Roundtable and King Arthur because there's
• 1:34:43
  part of that legend is Joseph of Arimathea travel. Yeah.
• 1:34:49
  Speaker 6: Yeah, well he I love Do you hear him on
• 1:34:52
  Snake Bros?
• 1:34:54
  Speaker 5: Yeah? And your show?
• 1:34:56
  Speaker 6: Okay, awesome. Yeah. So he's writing he's writing a book
• 1:34:58
  right now about well I we're pushing him to write
• 1:35:01
  it specifically about early Christianity and Europe. I think it's
• 1:35:04
  going to be broader, it's going to be more about
• 1:35:06
  Arthur and stuff. But either way, it's gonna be fascinating.
• 1:35:09
  But yeah, he believes and totally convinced me that Joseph
• 1:35:15
  of Arabynthea was in England. He almost convinced me that
• 1:35:21
  maybe Jesus's youth could have been spent in England. But
• 1:35:23
  I don't know. This guy was interesting. But uh, the
• 1:35:28
  rationale for that being, or at least for Joseph going there,
• 1:35:31
  is that when the Catholic Church arrived to England, they're like,
• 1:35:34
  we already have a Christian Church. Get out of here,
• 1:35:37
  you know, what are you doing? You know? And so
• 1:35:39
  there's this idea that Christianity might have been in England
• 1:35:42
  like from the very beginning. But they have another legend
• 1:35:46
  that the that the shroud is from a statue. They
• 1:35:54
  have a couple of different legends, but of the Fisher
• 1:35:56
  King that this that the Fisher King who's like an
• 1:35:59
  old king Arthur, or lore that the shroud was on
• 1:36:02
  the Fisher King for hundreds of years and this sort
• 1:36:05
  of like warrantine. It's totally bizarre, it doesn't make any sense,
• 1:36:08
  but it seems all to be based on the fact
• 1:36:10
  that they found this marine worm DNA. But people have
• 1:36:14
  to understand, like fragments of DNA are in the air
• 1:36:16
  all around you, like it means that thing. Yeah, so
• 1:36:21
  what's I don't understand what's up with all this? Like,
• 1:36:24
  I mean I do because it's cool, but like this
• 1:36:28
  like templar, Da Vinci Code, Billy Carson forbidden Knowledge. I mean,
• 1:36:34
  what do you think about all this stuff? I mean,
• 1:36:36
  I I just it seems I used to think it
• 1:36:39
  was really cool until I realized, like at the end,
• 1:36:42
  the message is always like maybe God isn't real, or
• 1:36:47
  maybe it's not what you think. You know, the Bible's wrong,
• 1:36:50
  you know, like it seems cool at first, like the
• 1:36:52
  Da Vinci code is like so cool at first, and
• 1:36:54
  then it's like, oh no, actually Jesus had a child
• 1:36:58
  and he was married, and it's like why does it
• 1:37:01
  always end up here? I don't know, but I've heard
• 1:37:03
  there's a lot of theories like that, like it's a
• 1:37:05
  night templar or something like that.
• 1:37:06
  Speaker 5: But I think most of it comes out of Gnosticism,
• 1:37:10
  which is like you could say, well, the Gnostics were Christians,
• 1:37:15
  you know, but the devil's kind of in the details.
• 1:37:18
  Speaker 6: Like oh no, twenty minutes into a conversation with the Gnostic,
• 1:37:22
  you know, God is the evil demiurge and the serpent
• 1:37:25
  was really Jesus. It is like, whoa, where did this
• 1:37:28
  come from?
• 1:37:29
  Speaker 5: But what I what I get from that is the
• 1:37:33
  degree to which people feel compelled to It always comes
• 1:37:38
  down to some refutation of Christ always, and it always
• 1:37:42
  comes down to some refutation of the fact that he
• 1:37:45
  would God born as a man you know, died and
• 1:37:49
  was resurrected on the on day three, which is basically
• 1:37:53
  the definition of what the anti Christ spirit is.
• 1:37:57
  Speaker 6: Yep.
• 1:37:58
  Speaker 5: If if if someone you know denies that Christ was
• 1:38:03
  born and died and resurrected, then that constitutes the anti
• 1:38:09
  Christ viewpoint. Well, it also happens to be the Gnostic
• 1:38:13
  viewpoint when it comes to the resurrections. And then there
• 1:38:17
  was certain cults that didn't believe it, like the I
• 1:38:21
  think the Sadducees didn't believe in resurrection. So you trace
• 1:38:28
  it all throughout history, it all goes back to the
• 1:38:31
  centrality of Jesus, and everything seems to be focused on Jesus,
• 1:38:36
  whether Jesus was real, whether Jesus is the Son of God,
• 1:38:40
  whether Jesus is the Messiah, whether Jesus is coming back,
• 1:38:43
  whether you know, and whole religions, philosophies, paradigms are built
• 1:38:51
  on trying to disprove that, but in a very subtle
• 1:38:56
  and deceptive way, a very sort of insidious way.
• 1:39:00
  Speaker 6: That stuff really worked on me for a long time.
• 1:39:03
  It's like everyone's telling me Jesus isn't really you know,
• 1:39:06
  like like maybe, oh, the Virgin birth is just a
• 1:39:10
  copy of Osirius, you know, and really, you know, December
• 1:39:14
  twenty fifth, which maybe that's the case, is really based
• 1:39:16
  on this thing. And you know, the resurrection is really
• 1:39:19
  based on this thing. And the twelve Disciples are at
• 1:39:22
  the Zodiac and I was like, hey, all these people
• 1:39:26
  are like so convinced that this guy's real. And then
• 1:39:30
  at some point, like you start asking like so when
• 1:39:32
  you read the Gospel, Like what did you think about Jesus?
• 1:39:35
  Oh I haven't read that, Like I'm not reading that.
• 1:39:37
  You know. It's like, oh, okay, so this is You're like,
• 1:39:39
  this is like predetermination. You know, you've decided some your
• 1:39:43
  dad took you to church and he was an asshole
• 1:39:45
  or whatever, like you've decided that this isn't real. And
• 1:39:48
  now you're just like doing these mental gymnastics. Now, what
• 1:39:51
  did kind of work on me for a long time.
• 1:39:53
  There's like a version of narcissism that is very pro
• 1:39:58
  christ Like. At every moment they're affirming like the power
• 1:40:04
  of Christ, the divinity of Christ. But but they believe
• 1:40:08
  that the God of the Old Testament is basically like
• 1:40:10
  Satan or the devil or demiurge or whatever. That kind
• 1:40:14
  of worked on me for a bit because you know,
• 1:40:16
  you read the Old Testament and you know there's it's
• 1:40:20
  a it's a tougher read, and there's some stuff whatever,
• 1:40:23
  I mean nothing to me that now that's like shock,
• 1:40:26
  you know, but you can get convinced of that. But
• 1:40:29
  then it's like, wait a second, let me read this
• 1:40:31
  gospel again. At every step of the way, Jesus is
• 1:40:34
  affirming those scriptures, and it's like, so you can't you
• 1:40:38
  can't have it both ways. You can't you can't talk
• 1:40:40
  about Christ this Christ that, and but everything he said
• 1:40:44
  in the Gospel is wrong, you know. So it's like
• 1:40:47
  it's just like a roundabout way of like sowing doubt
• 1:40:49
  type thing. And then some of some of the people
• 1:40:52
  I talk to who say they're NA, they'd like basically
• 1:40:55
  just say that they're Luciferian, Like they'll just say it that,
• 1:41:00
  and I'm like, whoa, like, like I wasn't expecting that,
• 1:41:05
  Like I thought you were gonna.
• 1:41:07
  Speaker 2: Do.
• 1:41:08
  Speaker 6: You just think about what the word nosis even means.
• 1:41:10
  It's literally knowledge. So it's like, oh, the guard knowledge,
• 1:41:14
  you know. But it's so that from their perspective, it's
• 1:41:17
  secret knowledge. It's it's knowledge. It's only known to the initiate,
• 1:41:23
  and that's basically what it is. It's the knowledge of Lucifer.
• 1:41:27
  Lucifer is the liberating spirit. Lucifer is the liberator of mankind,
• 1:41:34
  you know, here to share with human beings the knowledge
• 1:41:38
  that you know, the God of the Old Testament, well,
• 1:41:40
  that god's a tyrant, you know, the fact that just
• 1:41:43
  wants to control you and manipulate you. Is the knowledge bringer,
• 1:41:50
  you know. Yeah, he's he's anky, you know, he's he
• 1:41:55
  just wants us to be free.
• 1:41:58
  Speaker 1: You know.
• 1:41:59
  Speaker 6: Listen, it is compelling. But I just talked to afraid
• 1:42:02
  of about this. But it's it's a trick. Like I think,
• 1:42:07
  if you had a rough childhood and you had overbearing
• 1:42:11
  parents who didn't actually love you, you know, and you're
• 1:42:14
  scarred by that, then Lucifer becomes like an appealing character
• 1:42:18
  because he's the guy coming to you as a teenager
• 1:42:21
  when your parents are so hard on you, and he's
• 1:42:24
  saying like, hey, you don't need them, they don't love you,
• 1:42:26
  like come into the world, you know, but anyone and
• 1:42:31
  had I had a tough you know, I've strained relationship
• 1:42:34
  at times with my parents. But like I especially now
• 1:42:37
  as a father, I understand what it means to be
• 1:42:41
  a benevolent father, right, so I can understand this idea
• 1:42:47
  of like you can't be full, you can't just like
• 1:42:51
  there needs to be some constraint, like if you love someone,
• 1:42:54
  if you love a kid, you know, you you want
• 1:42:57
  them to have free will, right, you want them to
• 1:43:00
  learn by experience and make some mistakes, but you have
• 1:43:02
  to like you have to protect them from certain things.
• 1:43:05
  You have to punish them to an extent. You need
• 1:43:08
  to teach them hard lessons, you know. Yeah, I think
• 1:43:12
  at one time, like we all kind of secretly like
• 1:43:14
  we all want to be in the secret club, you know,
• 1:43:18
  Like we know there's a club out there that we're
• 1:43:20
  not in, and it's like we want to be in
• 1:43:22
  the club. We want to know the secrets, you know.
• 1:43:24
  So when someone comes around and they're like, you know,
• 1:43:27
  I've read all the books. I've read the Emerald tablets.
• 1:43:30
  You know, I've checked the charts and the figures, and
• 1:43:33
  let me tell you it's real. It's Christ's consciousness and
• 1:43:36
  the God of the Old Testament is evil and blah
• 1:43:38
  blah blahlah. And it's like, I think that gets people.
• 1:43:42
  Speaker 5: Yeah, the trick is not being so self assured about
• 1:43:46
  what you think.
• 1:43:47
  Speaker 6: You know.
• 1:43:48
  Speaker 5: Yeah, that's what I've discovered, because every time I go
• 1:43:51
  out and limb and say I figured it all out,
• 1:43:52
  you know, it's a very fleeting thing. I'm like, well,
• 1:43:55
  wait a minute.
• 1:43:57
  Speaker 6: You know, I'm glad other people have moments. I'll be
• 1:44:00
  reading something I'm like, oh oh, and then I'll try
• 1:44:03
  to explain it to somebody and I just sound like
• 1:44:04
  a razy lunatic, you know, probably half of my podcasts.
• 1:44:08
  But so I'm glad to know you've had that experience too. Yeah,
• 1:44:12
  what do you think is going on in the world?
• 1:44:14
  Do you think it's ending?
• 1:44:18
  Speaker 5: I don't. I don't think the world is ending. I
• 1:44:24
  think we're moving into a time period where we're starting
• 1:44:29
  to experience what's what's going to ultimately be like revelation,
• 1:44:33
  and I think things are being exposed. I think frauds
• 1:44:41
  and hoaxes are being exposed, like people are sort of
• 1:44:46
  following on one side or the other of this sort
• 1:44:51
  of greater schism that seems to be developing. And I
• 1:44:54
  think people some people are doubling down about what they
• 1:44:58
  what they believe their viewpoint, and then you got people
• 1:45:03
  on the other side doubling down on their viewpoint, and
• 1:45:06
  things are becoming more polarized. And I mean think about revelation.
• 1:45:12
  I don't think of it so much as the end
• 1:45:14
  of the world. People always equate that with revelation equals apocalypse,
• 1:45:20
  equals the end of the world. But revelation is really
• 1:45:23
  just revealing the truth of the situation of all creation
• 1:45:30
  and revealing Jesus Christ. That's what the revelation is. It's
• 1:45:35
  about who Jesus is and what Jesus is going to
• 1:45:38
  do ultimately, what he's going to accomplish with his kingdom.
• 1:45:42
  That's what revelation is. It's not the end of the world.
• 1:45:46
  And if you want to look at it strictly biblically,
• 1:45:49
  the world doesn't yet destroyed. The world is recreated, it's renewed,
• 1:45:55
  it's refreshed, you know, possibly for you know, this may
• 1:46:01
  be a cycle that we've gone through. I think when
• 1:46:05
  we look at the Bible, it's only the current iteration
• 1:46:09
  of whatever cycle we've been experiencing and then sort of
• 1:46:15
  a great reset, and I think God's firmly in control
• 1:46:18
  of that. As much as things look out of control
• 1:46:21
  and chaotic, it's not really chaos. And I have to
• 1:46:25
  constantly remind myself of that because I have anxiety about
• 1:46:29
  the future, and especially you know, for my kids, you know,
• 1:46:32
  the world that they're going to inherit, you know, after
• 1:46:36
  I'm gone, creates quite a bit of anxiety. But I
• 1:46:43
  have to remember, like there's a plan to it. So
• 1:46:48
  I think we're getting close to it. Like I said before,
• 1:46:50
  I think we've been in the end Times, you know,
• 1:46:53
  for two thousand years now, So in reality, we're toward
• 1:46:57
  the end of the end Times the way I look
• 1:47:00
  at it. But it doesn't mean everything's going to be destroyed.
• 1:47:05
  There's a very deliberate chain of events. I think it's
• 1:47:09
  just perfect justice is going to be played out.
• 1:47:13
  Speaker 6: Yeah, So I I don't I need to I need
• 1:47:18
  to read Revelation. I've I've read bits and pieces of it,
• 1:47:21
  but I would love to know what is because I
• 1:47:26
  don't know if there's like a lot of agreement amongst
• 1:47:28
  religious folks, like what the Bible says is going to happen,
• 1:47:31
  Like are we going to another dimension to heaven? Are
• 1:47:34
  we going to be resurrected here on Earth and the
• 1:47:36
  New Earth? Like I get different things from different people.
• 1:47:40
  I mean, I guess nobody knows.
• 1:47:41
  Speaker 5: But I yeah, I don't think anybody really knows for certain,
• 1:47:46
  because there's not a lot of those kind of details
• 1:47:49
  in the Bible. Certain people are really good about digging
• 1:47:53
  out those details and taking it into the realm of speculation.
• 1:47:58
  I think that there will be a bodily resurrection. I think, well,
• 1:48:07
  the Bible says that we will receive new bodies or
• 1:48:11
  glorified bodies, so there's some sort of physicality still involved.
• 1:48:17
  And I think maybe, however, God has his kingdom organized
• 1:48:23
  some of us. Maybe I think we're going to have
• 1:48:27
  different jobs, different assignments, you know, based on our you know,
• 1:48:31
  our skill set or whatever. But some people may be
• 1:48:36
  in the heavens, some people may be assigned to other planets,
• 1:48:40
  some people may be assigned to the Earth. I tend
• 1:48:43
  to think it's still going to be very earth centric,
• 1:48:47
  Like I think this is our neighborhood in the universe
• 1:48:51
  that God's created for us. I don't think necessarily we're
• 1:48:56
  going to go and conquer the stars in the name
• 1:48:58
  of God or whatever, you know, and spread the Gospel
• 1:49:02
  across the universe.
• 1:49:03
  Speaker 6: I know, you know, some people think that, and maybe
• 1:49:05
  I mean because I love the idea of it being real,
• 1:49:08
  like it and it just makes sense. I mean, like
• 1:49:11
  this thing we're in, like it's seems to be like
• 1:49:15
  for us whatever this is, you know, and I love
• 1:49:19
  the idea of it, Like, yeah, why would we be
• 1:49:22
  in a disembodied spirit in some other dimension? Is that
• 1:49:25
  what we think? I love the idea of it being
• 1:49:27
  physical and real. I definitely feel some kind of weird
• 1:49:30
  poll like over not to be too supernatural, like but
• 1:49:34
  over my soul, you know, cause like I wrestle with
• 1:49:38
  a lot of doubt. I one thing I'm certain about,
• 1:49:42
  Like when I read uh, the you know, the Gospel,
• 1:49:45
  I'm like, there's something very special about Jesus, Like this
• 1:49:50
  is not man. I refuse to read this guy. Like
• 1:49:53
  when when we're too the part of each paragraph where
• 1:49:56
  Jesus is talking, It's like I know it's Jesus talking,
• 1:49:59
  Like it's just you can tell someone was like listening
• 1:50:02
  to this guy and writing things down.
• 1:50:05
  Speaker 1: You know.
• 1:50:05
  Speaker 6: It's it's he's just so consistent. He's so consistent. And
• 1:50:09
  then but also there's like slight differences between the gospels,
• 1:50:12
  so it just kind of points to this idea that
• 1:50:14
  like they're they're listening to him and they're writing things
• 1:50:19
  down and they get it slightly different, but like the
• 1:50:21
  character of Jesus is the same, you know, and it
• 1:50:24
  feels like there's people writing about things they saw. But then,
• 1:50:28
  you know, I kind of scientifically minded, So I'll spend
• 1:50:32
  two hours listening to agnostics because I want to get like, Okay,
• 1:50:35
  what's the if this is the truth, let me get
• 1:50:37
  both sides of it, and then pretty soon I'll find
• 1:50:39
  myself like quoting them. A lot of times I'm on
• 1:50:42
  the Happy Fools podcast, I'm kind of like playing Devil's
• 1:50:45
  Advocate with Alfredo because I'm trying to like sort out
• 1:50:48
  what I think. Lately, I'm feeling like maybe it's time
• 1:50:52
  to just stop doing that, Like maybe just just I
• 1:50:57
  should just trust that it's correct, you know. But I'm
• 1:51:01
  still I'm still wrestling. I still have a lot of
• 1:51:03
  like I want to know. I want to freaking know,
• 1:51:06
  you know, like what is it all real? Or parts
• 1:51:08
  of it real? You know?
• 1:51:10
  Speaker 5: Well, speaking of that, I was going to ask you
• 1:51:12
  since your your your first two books sort of have
• 1:51:14
  this theme of empirical data lending to spiritual understanding, is
• 1:51:23
  there another topic like on the horizon that you're looking
• 1:51:26
  at diving into and is it going to be the
• 1:51:28
  same sort of.
• 1:51:29
  Speaker 6: Theme I'm I'm writing a book right now. The one
• 1:51:36
  thing I'm fascinated by because I think it's what brought
• 1:51:38
  me sort of in a sense, back to religion, and
• 1:51:42
  I think it brings a lot of people back to
• 1:51:43
  religion is you know, a lot of people don't believe
• 1:51:48
  in God, but a lot of people sure seem like
• 1:51:51
  they believe in Satan. You know, sure seems like that,
• 1:51:55
  like when you see their actions, you see the things
• 1:51:57
  they do in the occult people sure seem to believe
• 1:52:01
  in the occults. And so that's not a world I
• 1:52:03
  want to dive into. But I want to write I'm
• 1:52:05
  writing about I don't quite have like the narrative arc
• 1:52:10
  figured out, but I'm writing about AI and this idea
• 1:52:15
  of like technology has been presented to us as sort
• 1:52:19
  of like a savior of humanity, and it really has.
• 1:52:23
  I don't think people realize how deeply our society has
• 1:52:27
  convinced us that like technology will save us, you know.
• 1:52:31
  So I'm writing about that. So right now I'm just
• 1:52:33
  kind of in the research stage, and I'm just blown
• 1:52:35
  away by how dark some of these characters are. Like
• 1:52:38
  I just recorded that episode about Sam Altman, Like dude's
• 1:52:42
  a fucking monster as far as I can tell. Sorry
• 1:52:45
  for the language, but like it literally a sadistic psychopath.
• 1:52:50
  And he has built this machine that's emulating creation, and
• 1:52:56
  he knows a lot about you. People pray to it,
• 1:53:01
  they'll ask it questions like what's the meaning of life?
• 1:53:03
  Speaker 5: You know.
• 1:53:06
  Speaker 6: I just think there's something so sinister about that. And
• 1:53:09
  I think by kind of like showing in like an
• 1:53:12
  investigative way that these people and these companies and some
• 1:53:17
  of these scientists alchemists, like they're tapped into something supernatural,
• 1:53:24
  I kind of want to go that direction. It's completely
• 1:53:26
  new direction. I'm floundering a little bit. I'm having a
• 1:53:29
  hard time figuring out what the story is. But so
• 1:53:31
  I might change my mind, but right now that's what
• 1:53:33
  I'm looking into.
• 1:53:34
  Speaker 5: Well, that's interesting. Because one of the things that people
• 1:53:37
  don't realize when you're when you're querrying, chat GPT, or
• 1:53:42
  you're asking IT questions, it's it's not just giving you
• 1:53:46
  an answer, it's also learning about you and what you're
• 1:53:50
  interested in researching. It's interested in your viewpoint or the
• 1:53:54
  paradigm that you're trying to construct through your research to
• 1:53:59
  understand what's what's compelling to human beings, And it's learning
• 1:54:04
  how to frame its answers in a certain way to
• 1:54:08
  give you the results that you're expecting and the results
• 1:54:10
  that you want, or to possibly depending on how it's programmed,
• 1:54:16
  you know, steer you to certain conclusions. So if we
• 1:54:20
  get to a point where and people are already saying this,
• 1:54:23
  they're already proposing legislation that will allow the AI. Once
• 1:54:29
  it's sufficiently advanced, it's going to be the compendium of
• 1:54:33
  all human knowledge basically.
• 1:54:35
  Speaker 6: So that's how we treat it. Any podcasts, I do it.
• 1:54:39
  I do it on my podcast. It's like, is that true?
• 1:54:41
  Let me look it up, you know, yeah, everyone, Its
• 1:54:44
  just presented Like I was watching Rugan the other day
• 1:54:47
  and this guy, this guy said something. I can't remember
• 1:54:51
  the exact context, but he's basically the guy who's like
• 1:54:55
  done the research on this topic. And he says something
• 1:54:58
  and so like he knows more about it than any
• 1:55:00
  man on earth, right, And then Joe goes, Hey, Jamie,
• 1:55:03
  ask perplexity if that's true, and the guy kind of
• 1:55:06
  looks at him like, what, like, perplexity can only cite
• 1:55:09
  my work, Like why do you need to ask perplexity.
• 1:55:11
  I've noticed that chat GPT has cited my research to
• 1:55:15
  me as if it's its idea. That's how I know
• 1:55:18
  it's it's People are like, oh, it's the anti Christ
• 1:55:21
  or whatever. It's like, no, no, no, no, it's it's
• 1:55:23
  it's evil, but it's it's an extension of the fallenness
• 1:55:28
  of humanity. It's not it's not life, it's not sension.
• 1:55:32
  It's it's it's just the next iteration of like sadistic,
• 1:55:37
  powerful people trying to influence the world, but it isn't
• 1:55:41
  scarily effective.
• 1:55:43
  Speaker 5: Yeah, I think it's like an amplification. Yes, as well.
• 1:55:47
  And if we get to a point where we start
• 1:55:50
  to think of AI as this sort of sentient thing
• 1:55:53
  that we've created, like our you know, our little AI
• 1:55:56
  child or something, we give it the thought authority to
• 1:56:01
  you know, make decisions. If if judges on the Supreme
• 1:56:04
  Court are going to run every case through the AI
• 1:56:06
  to see what the AI says is is this a
• 1:56:09
  just decision or is this appropriate legislation or whatever, then
• 1:56:13
  we could be in deep trouble because I mean, ultimately
• 1:56:17
  it comes down to who's programming the algorithm, you know,
• 1:56:21
  and the outcome that they want to see. And they
• 1:56:25
  may say, well, hey, you know, if if this is
• 1:56:27
  if this is compiling all human knowledge and all these
• 1:56:30
  cross references and coming up with the best possible you know,
• 1:56:33
  solution here, the best possible outcome for all of society,
• 1:56:39
  then we're going to put too much trust in it.
• 1:56:42
  Speaker 6: Oh yeah, oh, and and be so easy to manipulate,
• 1:56:44
  Like like all the time people be like like now
• 1:56:48
  I'll hear someone say like, oh, the word Lucifer's never
• 1:56:50
  in the Bible. So I'll go to chat gipt and
• 1:56:52
  say it is from the Bible, and it will say, yeah,
• 1:56:53
  well it's it's right here, but earlier versions might have
• 1:56:57
  used this word, and earlier versions might have used that
• 1:56:59
  word like and so I'm going to it to learn
• 1:57:03
  things about like the something pretty important, you know, the Bible, right,
• 1:57:08
  it's not going to be long before. That's how everyone
• 1:57:11
  I mean, we're already there. That's how everyone gets information
• 1:57:13
  about everything. So like imagine asking questions about like scripture,
• 1:57:17
  for example. These little tweaks would be so easy, Like
• 1:57:21
  we've already proven we're good at like changing the meaning
• 1:57:24
  of words and the interpretation of things. I mean, what's
• 1:57:27
  a man? What's a woman? What's a vaccine? Is it
• 1:57:29
  a biologic? Is it is mRNA? This like we are
• 1:57:34
  already so deceptive human you know certain humans like this
• 1:57:38
  is You're right, It's like a lever, It's like a
• 1:57:40
  force multiplier.
• 1:57:43
  Speaker 5: It's really it was a yeah, there was a I
• 1:57:45
  think there was a ted talk by some lady. I
• 1:57:48
  don't know what tech company or I don't remember what
• 1:57:52
  who she was associated with, but she made a comment
• 1:57:57
  that maybe maybe truth shouldn't be our ultimate mode of motivation.
• 1:58:01
  Maybe it should be a consensus, come to a consensus
• 1:58:06
  about information. That should be our true goal, like get
• 1:58:10
  rid of all the extremes and all the wild ideas.
• 1:58:13
  But most everybody pretty much agrees on this, So it's
• 1:58:16
  going to be like this sort of Wikipedia history or
• 1:58:21
  like Ministry of Truth, like history that we're all stuck with. Meanwhile,
• 1:58:25
  all the you know, extra data and little other points
• 1:58:32
  and viewpoints and stuff that you may have been able
• 1:58:35
  to dig out by doing your own research and reading
• 1:58:37
  books and that sort of thing is going to get
• 1:58:39
  lost for all time, and we'll be stuck with this consensus,
• 1:58:44
  which is kind of a sort of mostly accurate, you know,
• 1:58:48
  view of history minus the few little details that make
• 1:58:51
  things interesting.
• 1:58:52
  Speaker 6: And it's so dystopian it doesn't take much manipulation and
• 1:58:57
  has completely changed the interpretation and you know, yeah, it's
• 1:59:01
  pretty freaking And it'd be one thing if these companies
• 1:59:03
  were ran by like noble figures, you know, but they're
• 1:59:07
  they're not. These are dark characters, man, These are bad actors.
• 1:59:12
  These are weirdos. I mean, dude, I mean, of course alleged.
• 1:59:17
  Everything I'm about to say is alleged. But Sam Altman,
• 1:59:21
  for example, he's just one example. I only use him
• 1:59:23
  because you know, he's in charge of the biggest AI
• 1:59:26
  company in the world and literally his company's propping up
• 1:59:28
  our economy that in the video he uh is probably
• 1:59:32
  a pedophile, and not just a pedophile, but an incestual pedophile.
• 1:59:36
  I mean, his sister is in court right now, claiming
• 1:59:39
  that from the age of three years old to like twelve,
• 1:59:45
  he was raping her but all the different ways, right,
• 1:59:51
  like very disturbing stuff, and then stopped and came out
• 1:59:55
  as gay. And so now he's married to a man,
• 1:59:59
  say whatever, and you know they rented some lady's womb
• 2:00:03
  and have a child, you know, and it's just like,
• 2:00:08
  you know, he's also a lot of people think he
• 2:00:09
  ordered the murder of a whistleblower, you know, or at
• 2:00:12
  least knew about it or somehow was responsible for it.
• 2:00:15
  So like, is this the guy? Is this the type
• 2:00:19
  of culture, the type of environment we want? Literally like
• 2:00:22
  that he has the power to shape the world, you know,
• 2:00:27
  in a way that I think very few people ever have.
• 2:00:32
  Speaker 5: And how did they get off the hook?
• 2:00:33
  Speaker 6: Like was that just his like exploratory phase, and so
• 2:00:37
  like they basically ruined his in my opinion, again, they
• 2:00:41
  basically ruined his poor sister's life. They said she's mentally unwell,
• 2:00:46
  and she is mentally unwell now, you know, because she
• 2:00:50
  went through with her her parents divorced. It seems like
• 2:00:53
  maybe her dad kind of believed her, you know, because
• 2:00:56
  she was very close with her dad. Her dad Well,
• 2:01:00
  here's the thing. They didn't officially divorce. They separated the
• 2:01:02
  mom and the dad. The dad died. The dad had
• 2:01:06
  a really serious heart condition. He should have been retired.
• 2:01:09
  Sam was a many times over multimillionaire. He wouldn't give
• 2:01:13
  him a dollar again because the dad knows what Sam
• 2:01:18
  was up to, right, seems like. So the dad dies,
• 2:01:21
  he leaves everything in his will to his daughter, Annie Altman.
• 2:01:25
  Sam and the mom collude to keep her from getting
• 2:01:29
  any of the money, even though they're wealthy. And then
• 2:01:33
  they she starts talking to the press. They tell the
• 2:01:36
  press that she's mentally unwell and that refuses to accept
• 2:01:40
  money for therapy. Well, we now have a text message,
• 2:01:44
  a group text message of Annie Altman begging her mom
• 2:01:47
  and Sam for money to go see a therapist and
• 2:01:51
  they said no. So they're liars. I mean they're like,
• 2:01:55
  of of course, I mean, of all the allegations, that's
• 2:01:58
  the But people who lie about the things will lie
• 2:02:00
  about big things. I mean, that is it. That is
• 2:02:03
  the truest thing there is. And so they're lying. And
• 2:02:07
  there's there's letters from him and it's like shabbatial like
• 2:02:10
  not not sachala. But he opens in this then like
• 2:02:13
  the Hebrew reading, and he gives us very like like
• 2:02:18
  just grow anyone who knows a narcissist like where they're
• 2:02:21
  they're trying to sound like they're apologizing, but they're not.
• 2:02:25
  It's like, even though you made our lives miserable and
• 2:02:27
  you're mentally unwell, I guess I should have given you
• 2:02:29
  everything you asked for. I hope we can be fine.
• 2:02:32
  Blah blah blah. This is after she's in court accusing
• 2:02:35
  him of rape. Right, he's sending her this letter. So anyway,
• 2:02:39
  they're demanding a jury trial, but he's one of the
• 2:02:42
  most powerful people in the world. He's not going to
• 2:02:44
  a jury trial for incest. So so I'm sure they'll
• 2:02:50
  settle or whatever, you know, and it will be like
• 2:02:52
  a gag order and she'll get one hundred grand or whatever.
• 2:02:54
  But the point is, uh, that's not the only example.
• 2:02:59
  There's like all a lot of these guys that are
• 2:03:03
  in charge of these companies. They're sum's off man, some's weird.
• 2:03:10
  There's dude, there's something about the destruction of innocence and
• 2:03:13
  the desire for power that goes hand in hand, and
• 2:03:20
  you know, it could just be human psychology or whatever.
• 2:03:23
  But I think it isn't. I think it's something else.
• 2:03:25
  I think it's something darker.
• 2:03:28
  Speaker 5: You know. Yeah, well I agree with that. I think
• 2:03:32
  that's part of what gives you power in the occult
• 2:03:35
  world is trauma. The more debased your behavior, the more
• 2:03:44
  you graduate through the levels of power and control. And
• 2:03:48
  it's all it's all mind control. It's all like, it's
• 2:03:50
  all psychological. That's basically what magic is.
• 2:03:54
  Speaker 6: Yes, it's all.
• 2:03:55
  Speaker 5: It's all psychology, and it's it's just by nature, and
• 2:04:02
  it's all about your will over someone else's will, even
• 2:04:05
  if that means, you know, gaslighting your own sister, your
• 2:04:08
  own family, for the rest of your life, you know,
• 2:04:11
  until everybody's dead and everybody forgot what happened. You know,
• 2:04:15
  you even convince yourself, I think, yeah, yeah, you have.
• 2:04:19
  At some point you fried your conscience. You lost your
• 2:04:22
  conscience along the way.
• 2:04:23
  Speaker 6: It's like, people won't get this if they've never watched
• 2:04:26
  Harry Potter, but it's like you you've like it's like
• 2:04:28
  a horre. Correct. Have you ever read Harry Potter or
• 2:04:30
  watched the movie?
• 2:04:31
  Speaker 5: I saw the first couple of movies.
• 2:04:33
  Speaker 6: But I'm sorry, I'm sorry. I know it's totally dorky,
• 2:04:36
  but yeah, the bad guy is basically Satan, right, He's Voldemort, right,
• 2:04:40
  and he yeah, every time he kills so that he
• 2:04:43
  can put a piece of his soul into this object,
• 2:04:46
  so that if someone kills him, he can be reborn. Right.
• 2:04:48
  It's very dark, but it is this idea of like,
• 2:04:52
  you do something bad and you break. That's sort of
• 2:04:56
  the theme of who how Voltimore becomes so evil? Right?
• 2:05:00
  And I think that's true of p I think that
• 2:05:02
  is actually true. I think you, like, I don't think
• 2:05:05
  you come back from that. I think your mind starts
• 2:05:08
  to twist and break, and you get this lust for
• 2:05:12
  power and control and manipulation. And I just now whether
• 2:05:18
  that's just some weird I love the idea that like
• 2:05:21
  this is a product of evolution. It's like, I don't
• 2:05:24
  think so man, Like this is a spirit there's spiritual
• 2:05:27
  forces at play, you know when I read a story
• 2:05:30
  like that. So I don't know. I don't know if
• 2:05:32
  I can write a book about that that isn't depressing.
• 2:05:35
  That's what I got to figure out. But anyway, my
• 2:05:38
  point is it's stuff like this that makes good people.
• 2:05:43
  I actually think it's incredibly powerful when you hear that
• 2:05:46
  every day you talk to a machine that's made by
• 2:05:49
  an ancestual rapist and one of the richest people in
• 2:05:52
  the world. When all of your favorite actors and politicians
• 2:05:56
  are going to an island in the Virgin Islands and
• 2:06:00
  they're being blackmailed by some you know, CIAgent or whatever,
• 2:06:05
  like you hear that as like a normal good person,
• 2:06:07
  and you go, I think Heaven and Hell are real,
• 2:06:11
  you know what I mean?
• 2:06:11
  Speaker 5: Like I think I think I think it's evil.
• 2:06:14
  Speaker 6: It's just evil, yeah, But I mean like the fact
• 2:06:17
  that true evil exists makes me people believe in God,
• 2:06:19
  I think because they're like, oh, like because I think
• 2:06:22
  you can live in this world where like, yeah, there's
• 2:06:24
  no God, there's no Satan. But then but then you
• 2:06:26
  find out Satan exists for sure. I think, like I
• 2:06:30
  think what this teaches me? And then you're like, oh, yeah,
• 2:06:34
  there's something bigger at place. So that that's the book
• 2:06:37
  I want to write, but I just don't know how
• 2:06:38
  to write it.
• 2:06:39
  Speaker 5: Like these people aren't just socially awkward, smart guys, right,
• 2:06:44
  you know, there's something else going on there. There was
• 2:06:46
  some like trauma or something yep in their life, and
• 2:06:51
  they I mean the Bible says that God will give
• 2:06:54
  them over to their reprobate mind at some point.
• 2:06:58
  Speaker 6: What does that mean.
• 2:07:00
  Speaker 5: Uh, if you're reprobate, like you said, you're not capable
• 2:07:04
  of repentance anymore. You're you're so far gone that God says, Okay,
• 2:07:10
  well you've chosen can At that point, there's there's kind
• 2:07:16
  of no turning back. So God, the Bible actually says
• 2:07:20
  that God sends a delusion over these people. So the
• 2:07:25
  delusion actually is solidified by by God himself. At some
• 2:07:30
  point he gives you. He gives gives you over to
• 2:07:34
  your evil.
• 2:07:36
  Speaker 6: I didn't even know that was in there. That's interesting.
• 2:07:38
  Speaker 5: Yeah, I mean whether whether you can come back from that,
• 2:07:40
  whether you can repent or have a breakdown and and
• 2:07:43
  and and be restored and be forgiven. I I mean,
• 2:07:47
  I don't know at that point, how do you?
• 2:07:52
  Speaker 6: Yeah, I do.
• 2:07:53
  Speaker 5: Uh, you've so thoroughly corrupted your your mind. I don't
• 2:07:58
  think you really understand good and evil anymore, right, Which
• 2:08:03
  is just it's like a key thing. It goes right
• 2:08:05
  back to the garden and the knowledge of good and evil.
• 2:08:08
  There's there's something there. There's a mystery there, the mystery
• 2:08:11
  of iniquity. The what what causes men to be evil
• 2:08:16
  and do evil things?
• 2:08:19
  Speaker 6: You know? It's interesting because you kind of just gave
• 2:08:21
  like a good spiritual definition of like sociopathy. It's like
• 2:08:26
  you you don't actually know what's right and wrong, you know,
• 2:08:32
  And that's interesting. It's interesting conceptualizing of it that way.
• 2:08:37
  Speaker 5: And you have to you have to convince yourself in
• 2:08:40
  like a sort of a Satanic worldview, which is might
• 2:08:44
  makes right. Whatever I have to do to survive and
• 2:08:47
  get ahead, doesn't matter what the consequences are for other people.
• 2:08:52
  You know, if I steal, it's all for my own
• 2:08:56
  survival and my own benefit. And I'm justified because I
• 2:08:59
  know how to do. I know how to gaslight people,
• 2:09:01
  I know how to lie, I know how to cheat,
• 2:09:04
  and those are the tools I'm going to use to
• 2:09:06
  get ahead in this world. And got at some point says, Okay,
• 2:09:10
  I'll give you what you want. You want to be famous,
• 2:09:12
  you want to be rich in this world, Then you'll
• 2:09:15
  have that. You'll have your reward, but you lose eternity.
• 2:09:19
  You're going to lose eternity for it.
• 2:09:21
  Speaker 6: You've made your choice. Oh well, that that I mean that.
• 2:09:24
  There's so many gospel stories like that, like when he's
• 2:09:28
  talking to the Pharisees Jesus and he's like, is it
• 2:09:31
  the Pharisees, I don't know, but he basically tells him like,
• 2:09:34
  you've been given your reward, right they have the reward. Yeah,
• 2:09:38
  you have your reward. That's that's a cold line. That's
• 2:09:42
  like a powerful line. It's because I think so many
• 2:09:45
  people can conceive of like if God loves them based
• 2:09:50
  on their life, you know, like if they're living in
• 2:09:52
  a ten bedroom house on one hundred acres or like
• 2:09:55
  God loves me. You know, I'm rich, God loves me.
• 2:09:59
  And then if you're you're you're sleeping outside and miserable
• 2:10:02
  and you lost a family member and you know you're
• 2:10:05
  addicted to drugs, it's like, oh God hates me. And
• 2:10:08
  that is like that line right There's is so like
• 2:10:12
  good and powerful and I like just ice cold because
• 2:10:16
  Jesus is like, no, no, no, enjoy it. Well you
• 2:10:18
  can basically like you've been given your reward, you know,
• 2:10:22
  and you know the all all the stories about the
• 2:10:24
  least of you will be the greatest, and you know
• 2:10:26
  those who have nothing will have everything, and it's just
• 2:10:29
  it does not feel human. Those books anyway, that's that's
• 2:10:35
  my that's my uh my current feeling. You know, I
• 2:10:39
  I I wrestle with stuff, but but Jesus, I've I've
• 2:10:45
  managed to just fully convince myself is Uh is real?
• 2:10:49
  And and if he's real, then it's all real.
• 2:10:52
  Speaker 5: So m h really remarkable And you can definitely get
• 2:10:59
  that from reading the Gospels because nobody seems to understand him,
• 2:11:03
  you know. Yes, Nikodemus is like, what do you mean?
• 2:11:07
  I have to be born again? I have to crawl
• 2:11:09
  inside my room and be born again. And he's like.
• 2:11:12
  Speaker 6: Jesus, like, truly, truly, I tell you, unless you're born
• 2:11:16
  of water, you know, you will not enter the kingdom. Yeah.
• 2:11:19
  I mean there's tons of stuff I read. I'm like,
• 2:11:20
  I don't get it. But it's like I get enough
• 2:11:22
  of it where I'm like, okay, that's my limitation. That's
• 2:11:25
  not that's not a problem with the story, you know.
• 2:11:29
  Oh yeah, just they're like, why would we get married?
• 2:11:32
  You know, and he's explaining marriage to them. I love it.
• 2:11:34
  I love it.
• 2:11:35
  Speaker 5: They the even apostles, the people that were closest to her,
• 2:11:39
  and listen to every word he had to say. We're like,
• 2:11:42
  we're expecting Jesus to be this king of Israel that
• 2:11:45
  was gonna defeat the Romans and restore Israel and restore
• 2:11:50
  their power and their prestige.
• 2:11:52
  Speaker 6: He did.
• 2:11:54
  Speaker 5: He did in a way, just not in the way
• 2:11:55
  they were expecting.
• 2:11:56
  Speaker 6: That dude. That is what just boggles my mind about
• 2:11:59
  the whole thing is that they're writing this at the
• 2:12:01
  time and they're it's you can tell it's real because
• 2:12:06
  everyone's so confused. They're expecting a military figure. They're expecting, like,
• 2:12:10
  how are we going to conquer the Romans? What's the plan?
• 2:12:13
  And he's like, no, no, no, no, you know, and uh,
• 2:12:16
  but yet he does. It becomes the Holy Roman Empire
• 2:12:21
  three hundred years later. You know, it's a Christian empire,
• 2:12:26
  you know. And I know people have thoughts about the
• 2:12:28
  Catholic Church or whatever, but like literally, like those Jews
• 2:12:32
  in Israel or jude or Israel or whatever who chose
• 2:12:36
  to believe in Christ, they did conquer Rome. You know.
• 2:12:39
  The Apostles went out into Rome, you know, Paul into Rome,
• 2:12:43
  and they literally did conquer Romans. So it's like it's
• 2:12:46
  not just that he showed up and wasn't what anybody expected.
• 2:12:51
  Speaker 5: It just wasn't about physical Israel anymore. It wasn't about
• 2:12:55
  that strip of land on the Mediterranean Sea anymore. It
• 2:12:58
  was it evolved into what I think of as like
• 2:13:03
  spiritual Israel, including the Gentiles and spreading out across the world.
• 2:13:10
  Speaker 6: And again, it's one thing to make something up, and
• 2:13:12
  it's one thing to make something up and then do it,
• 2:13:15
  you know, to like to say something and then have
• 2:13:18
  it happen. And it's just it boggles the mind. It's
• 2:13:20
  crazy to me. I mean, I don't think you can
• 2:13:22
  really study it. I just find that most people don't
• 2:13:25
  read it. You know, there's something going on with that.
• 2:13:30
  There's some kind of spiritual force going on with that. Cause,
• 2:13:32
  like you know, if there's some controversial book that's super
• 2:13:37
  controversial and all your friends are telling you to read it,
• 2:13:39
  or all your friends are telling you to like, oh
• 2:13:40
  I disagree or I agree, you gotta read the book.
• 2:13:44
  You want to know what's that what's in here? Right?
• 2:13:47
  There's something about the Bible where it's like people will
• 2:13:52
  be adamantly opposed to it and will not read it.
• 2:13:56
  That's fascinating to me. That's like some kind of spiritual thing.
• 2:14:00
  There's like something in you saying you can't open that book,
• 2:14:05
  you know, like because as there's like some part of
• 2:14:07
  you or some something that some force that knows like
• 2:14:12
  if you start reading that book, like you know, you're
• 2:14:15
  not You're not going to read Matthew, Mark, Luke and
• 2:14:17
  John three times and be like yes, you know, sorry,
• 2:14:20
  like there's nothing.
• 2:14:21
  Speaker 1: To this, you know.
• 2:14:23
  Speaker 5: That's what you find out a lot when you debate,
• 2:14:25
  you have discussions with atheists or agnostics or whatever that
• 2:14:29
  a lot of times it boils down to they haven't
• 2:14:32
  really read the Bible. They just have an idea of
• 2:14:36
  what it says or idea of some of the concepts.
• 2:14:39
  But a lot of times that's wrong. I mean, there's
• 2:14:42
  Christians out there that believe so many things that are
• 2:14:45
  just not in the Bible. I think, I think inside
• 2:14:50
  you will have that resistance to reading because you know
• 2:14:54
  of its transformative power. If you read the Gospels long enough,
• 2:14:58
  if you read the Bible long if you if you
• 2:15:01
  devote a certain amount of your day to reading just
• 2:15:03
  a verse or just a chapter, it's transformative. It has
• 2:15:07
  a transformative power. And I don't think you, I don't
• 2:15:09
  think you can read it without it having that effect.
• 2:15:12
  So when you finally are like, you know what, I'm
• 2:15:14
  gonna open this up and read it. That's like, that's
• 2:15:18
  a life changing experience if you're if you're serious.
• 2:15:21
  Speaker 6: About it, I think so even I think even people
• 2:15:24
  who are reading it specifically to prove it wrong. Like
• 2:15:27
  I see this with some of the agnostic folks like
• 2:15:29
  Alex O'Connor. He knows the Gospel better than any Christian
• 2:15:35
  I met in real life, but maybe better than like
• 2:15:37
  any Christian, right, Like, so he's reading it specifically to
• 2:15:40
  disprove it. But over the years I see him and
• 2:15:43
  I can tell he's like softening to it. You know
• 2:15:46
  that he'll come I catch him defending the Gospels when
• 2:15:50
  he's with his you know, he'll bring on some atheist
• 2:15:52
  friend to like show that Jesus never claimed to be God,
• 2:15:56
  and he agrees with him right then, But then the
• 2:15:58
  guy will say something be like, well, no, I mean
• 2:16:02
  that's not the case, Like this is the case, and
• 2:16:04
  he's kind of you can tell. I mean, I think
• 2:16:06
  some people, I think it's possible to just flat out
• 2:16:09
  refuse to accept it, but I don't think that's the norm.
• 2:16:12
  I think if you, like, like you said, if you
• 2:16:14
  read it seriously, it's something there.
• 2:16:18
  Speaker 5: Man, I don't know, so yeah, I mean there's a
• 2:16:21
  lot there.
• 2:16:22
  Speaker 6: Yeah, yeah, me too, me too. I just I feel
• 2:16:25
  like I've like I've have got in there kicking and screaming,
• 2:16:29
  you know, like I just there's some part of me
• 2:16:31
  that is like so resistant to it. But now it's like, yeah,
• 2:16:35
  it's real. So so if it worked on me, I
• 2:16:39
  would encourage folks to check it out. And then after
• 2:16:43
  you do that by shroud pilled Bible first, Bible first,
• 2:16:50
  but check it out. There's lots of photos in here
• 2:16:53
  and stuff, so.
• 2:16:54
  Speaker 5: You can cross reference as they're reading shroud pill then
• 2:16:57
  they can go back to the Gospels and read the
• 2:16:59
  account of the crucifixion and how all those things line up.
• 2:17:03
  Speaker 6: I talk a lot about the Crucifixion, I mean conscious
• 2:17:06
  pilot is. And I'll let you go here. Man, I'm sorry,
• 2:17:09
  I've been talking forever, but it is interesting, like conscious
• 2:17:12
  pilot is. You know, well, there's this prophecy that none
• 2:17:16
  of his bones will be broken, and then you know,
• 2:17:21
  none of his bones are broken according to the gospel account,
• 2:17:24
  and then looking at him, if this is a real
• 2:17:26
  image of Jesus, you know, the shroud and it appears
• 2:17:28
  that none of his bones are broken. It appears that
• 2:17:31
  the lance, you know, stabbed his side, pierced his side,
• 2:17:36
  and then it appears that he died quickly. And so
• 2:17:42
  one of the one of the interesting things is like,
• 2:17:47
  you know, ponscious Pilot knows Roman crucifixion. This is he
• 2:17:51
  does this all the time, right, So he's he tells
• 2:17:55
  them to go because the Jews re entering a holy
• 2:17:58
  day or Sabbath or whatever, and you don't want these
• 2:18:01
  people on the cross anymore. So he tells the soldiers
• 2:18:03
  to go break their legs, and you know, Jesus is
• 2:18:07
  already dead. When they get there and say they don't
• 2:18:09
  break is like they pierced his side, and so you know,
• 2:18:11
  they're surprised by this, and it's just interesting that that
• 2:18:15
  like that shows up on the on the shroud. But anyway,
• 2:18:19
  it's just it's just it's it is interesting reading the
• 2:18:22
  gospel looking at the shroud. And if you want to
• 2:18:24
  be really cynical, you could say, well, this this mystery
• 2:18:28
  artist who is an expert in forensics and anatomy and
• 2:18:31
  imagery and photography in seven hundred eighty, he just made
• 2:18:36
  it that way to fit the gospel. I think that's
• 2:18:39
  pretty unrealistic and cynical. But you know, ultimately, with all
• 2:18:45
  this stuff, you know, you just kind of got to
• 2:18:47
  make a choice at some point. I think the evidence
• 2:18:49
  is in our favor though.
• 2:18:50
  Speaker 5: I think so definitely, because otherwise it would have to
• 2:18:53
  be like one of the most extraordinary hoaxes or fakes
• 2:18:59
  and history.
• 2:19:00
  Speaker 6: I would say the most I would say the most extraordinary.
• 2:19:03
  I mean, it's just there really is no coherent skeptical argument,
• 2:19:08
  Like there's skeptical arguments that are centered around one thing,
• 2:19:13
  but then it's like, well that doesn't account for these
• 2:19:15
  hundred other things, you know, like maybe that accounts for
• 2:19:17
  the blood stain, but it doesn't account for this or
• 2:19:19
  that or this or that, and yeah, it's just wold Man.
• 2:19:22
  So anyway, better freaking hope it's true, you know. I mean,
• 2:19:26
  the shroud doesn't need to be real for Jesus to
• 2:19:29
  be real, obviously, But I'm like, why are you arguing
• 2:19:32
  so passionately against this? Like, you better hope this is true?
• 2:19:36
  Speaker 5: Do you want to tell people real quick where they
• 2:19:39
  can find the book and where they can find you
• 2:19:42
  on the internets?
• 2:19:43
  Speaker 6: Yeah, you can get the books on Amazon God's Eye
• 2:19:46
  View and Shroud Pilled. If you read them, I'd love
• 2:19:50
  to know what you thought about them or any feedback.
• 2:19:52
  My emails run the back of the book, and we
• 2:19:57
  also have a sub stack. I don't contribute much to it.
• 2:20:00
  It's a lot of conspiratorial stuff. It's not necessarily Christian stuff.
• 2:20:03
  I don't know. It's different authors, some of them Christians,
• 2:20:06
  some of them not. But it's called Hemispheric Press dot
• 2:20:08
  substack dot com. That's my publisher, Hemispheric Press. So check
• 2:20:13
  them out. And then I have a podcast called Happy
• 2:20:15
  Fools right here on Fringe Radio Network, right here on
• 2:20:19
  Fringe Radio Network SYS and.
• 2:20:21
  Speaker 5: I'll I'll put your links in the show notes too,
• 2:20:23
  so people can click on over to Amazon and and
• 2:20:26
  get the books.
• 2:20:27
  Speaker 6: Thank you, man, I appreciate that. I'm gonna try to
• 2:20:32
  stop being so concerned about the goings on of the
• 2:20:35
  world and all of this dread that seems to be
• 2:20:40
  going on in our society. Just focus on the good stuff.
• 2:20:44
  Might listen to Might listen to Matthew right now on
• 2:20:48
  the audiobook, see what's going on there instead of flipping
• 2:20:53
  on YouTube. Well after I listened to Frine Radio Network
• 2:20:57
  shows first stuff course all right, Yes, I feel like
• 2:21:01
  they're most they tend to be more optimistic, you know,
• 2:21:04
  like yeah, yeah, I mean you have a lot of
• 2:21:08
  different shows on the feed, you know. But I just
• 2:21:10
  feel like, I just feel like like if you're into
• 2:21:13
  this stuff, you're not like you're not necessarily obsessed with
• 2:21:19
  like left first right, like you know, uh, the culture war. Like,
• 2:21:26
  I just I feel like you're just it's kind of
• 2:21:28
  more like you're you're seeking, you're searching. I feel like
• 2:21:30
  there's kind of an optimistic flare to it. Now. It
• 2:21:33
  can get kind of dark and sometimes I can't listen
• 2:21:36
  to it at night, but but I do feel like
• 2:21:39
  it's more optimistic than like flipping on YouTube because right
• 2:21:42
  now my algorithm is trying to politicize me in one
• 2:21:45
  direction or the other. So but anyway, man, I've rambled
• 2:21:50
  for too long. Take it easy.
• 2:21:51
  Speaker 5: It's been good talking to you. You have a good night,
• 2:21:53
  Yeah you too, Trevor Lowman Shroud Pilled is the book.
• 2:22:19
  He's got another book, God's Eye View. You can get
• 2:22:22
  both of those at Amazon. Check the show notes for
• 2:22:30
  the links to those. Always great getting to talk to Trevor,
• 2:22:37
  who has one of the most inquisitive minds. I think
• 2:22:41
  of anyone I've talked to recently that landed themselves in
• 2:22:47
  the fringe space. So thanks again to our guest. And
• 2:22:56
  here on the other side of the break, we've got
• 2:22:59
  some news, some Shroud related news, and some other uh
• 2:23:05
  news that I'm gonna rock it through here since we're
• 2:23:07
  running a little long. You've been listening to Ministry X
• 2:23:11
  on Fringe Radio Network Impossible Shroud of Turin discovery made
• 2:24:16
  by AI. Now, this researcher is mentioned in Trevor's book,
• 2:24:27
  and I'll put researcher in quotations after you listen to
• 2:24:36
  the tone of this article. This is also the article
• 2:24:41
  that was being commented on in the previous break by
• 2:24:48
  our beloved Sam Tripoli and Johnny Woodard on the Broken
• 2:24:53
  Simulation podcast. Okay, and by the way, we're reading this
• 2:24:58
  from the Mirror, which is a British tabloid paper. Now,
• 2:25:07
  not to say that tabloids don't ever publish legitimate news,
• 2:25:13
  but because they certainly do, and we can talk about that,
• 2:25:19
  we can talk about the American tabloids too, and that's
• 2:25:22
  a whole episode in and of itself. However, let's just
• 2:25:30
  read here in a stunning revelation. One expert has used
• 2:25:36
  AI to uncover a shocking impossibility regarding the shroud of Turin,
• 2:25:43
  previously believed to be Jesus' burial cloth. A groundbreaking new
• 2:25:52
  three D digital analysis suggests the ancient fabric was likely
• 2:25:57
  not marked by Christ's faith, but rather crafted by a
• 2:26:02
  medieval artist as a religious tribute. It was believed the
• 2:26:10
  shroud bore Jesus' imprint following his crucifixion and entombment, yet
• 2:26:18
  a Brazilian digital graphics specialist has now challenged this theory.
• 2:26:24
  According to archaeometry, Cicero Morese utilized free modeling software including
• 2:26:36
  make Human, Blender, and Cloud to show how fabric would
• 2:26:42
  react when draped over both a human form and a
• 2:26:47
  sculpture created on a flat surface with shallow elevated sections.
• 2:26:54
  The tour in shroud, measuring fourteen by five feet by
• 2:26:59
  three by seven seven feet, bears a faint impression of
• 2:27:03
  a man with injuries matching crucifixion death reports the mirror.
• 2:27:10
  For centuries, it was considered a sacred relic from over
• 2:27:13
  two thousand years ago. Despite doubts about this account's authenticity,
• 2:27:20
  the story has endured since the artifact first emerged in
• 2:27:25
  the fourteenth century. In nineteen eighty nine, radiocarbon dating tests
• 2:27:32
  dated the shroud's origins to the medieval era between twelve
• 2:27:37
  sixty and thirteen ninety CE. Though subsequent research challenged these results,
• 2:27:45
  proposing that the sample may have originated from a mended
• 2:27:49
  portion of the fabric, the initial account remained widely accepted.
• 2:27:57
  During Morey's latest digital examination, the image created when cloth
• 2:28:02
  was virtually placed over a three D human figure differed
• 2:28:05
  significantly from the shroud itself. The figure looked distorted, broader,
• 2:28:13
  and mishappened, owing to what occurs when fabric rests over
• 2:28:19
  an actual body. Now, I'm looking at the pictures here
• 2:28:25
  and it shows the shroud in the center, and on
• 2:28:29
  either side there's the imprint of the statue, and then
• 2:28:37
  the low relief sculpture, and the statue looks relatively close.
• 2:28:45
  I would say the low relief sculpture, the tabletop one,
• 2:28:53
  looks quite distorted from the original. But to say that
• 2:28:59
  constantitutes an impossibility, that seems like the error here, the
• 2:29:08
  stretch here, that this is a foregone conclusion. Now, I
• 2:29:13
  don't see how that proves anything. This distortion is known
• 2:29:18
  as the Agamemnon mask effect, named after the broad gold
• 2:29:24
  burial mask unearthed at Mycenae. Mycenaea. I'm not good with
• 2:29:31
  Greek an ancient Greek archaeological location. Sure you know what
• 2:29:36
  I'm talking about. Conversely, the impression from a low relief
• 2:29:41
  sculpture closely resembled the shape and proportions of that on
• 2:29:46
  the Turin shroud. Okay, maybe I have the images reversed.
• 2:29:51
  Maybe the one that's more distorted is actually the sculpture.
• 2:29:57
  I didn't look closely enough.
• 2:30:01
  Speaker 6: Focus Daniels.
• 2:30:03
  Speaker 5: Yeah, but this is what he said. The contact pattern
• 2:30:08
  generated by the low relief model is more compatible with
• 2:30:13
  the shroud's image. It shows less anatomical distortion and greater
• 2:30:19
  fidelity to the observed contours. He explained how shallow sculpture,
• 2:30:26
  perhaps crafted from wood, stone or metal, would probably have
• 2:30:33
  acted as a mold to achieve the intended outcome. Okay,
• 2:30:40
  that's all speculative. It's not addressing a lot of the
• 2:30:45
  other issues. What about the blood. I mean, we've got
• 2:30:50
  a lot of different issues here, as we talked about
• 2:30:53
  a little bit with Trevor. There's the issue of the
• 2:30:57
  organic matter, like the blood, the plasma. There's the issue of,
• 2:31:03
  you know, how the image was produced. There's a lot
• 2:31:10
  of different angles in which you can study this thing.
• 2:31:15
  This article is concerned with the image itself, how it
• 2:31:19
  was produced, trying to replicate something like the shroud or similar.
• 2:31:25
  But that's as close as this gets this research. But
• 2:31:30
  I'm gonna keep reading a little bit. Subsequently, heat or
• 2:31:35
  pigment may have been applied exclusively to the raised portions
• 2:31:40
  of the surface to form the outline of Jesus's likeness.
• 2:31:46
  We also really don't know what Jesus looked like. There's
• 2:31:50
  very scant description of him in the Bible his physical description.
• 2:31:58
  Mores stated that this technique would account for the smooth,
• 2:32:02
  flat image of the shroud, unlike the warped outcome one
• 2:32:08
  might encounter by wrapping fabric around an actual human body.
• 2:32:13
  Morees indicated there was a slight possibility the cloth may
• 2:32:17
  have been taken from a genuine covering of a corpse.
• 2:32:20
  His research backs the carbon dating of nineteen eighty nine.
• 2:32:27
  Morees didn't delve into the material itself or the potential
• 2:32:30
  techniques employed, but determined the artifact ought to be viewed
• 2:32:35
  as a master work of Christian art. That's a quote.
• 2:32:41
  The creative depiction aligns with the era. Throughout the medieval period,
• 2:32:47
  subtle portrayals of religious figures were widespread across Europe, and
• 2:32:52
  shallow engravings were frequently utilized by medieval craftsmen. Okay, and
• 2:33:02
  all of that may be true. What's misleading here is
• 2:33:06
  the headline. Nowhere in this article do I read impossible now,
• 2:33:11
  Trevor assures me. In his book he goes into more
• 2:33:15
  detail about this particular individual in his research, and I
• 2:33:21
  didn't get the impression that he had a very favorable
• 2:33:25
  view I'm talking about, Trevor. But why that is You'll
• 2:33:29
  have to buy the book Shroud Pilled check the show
• 2:33:34
  notes again for that. As far as my opinion, I
• 2:33:39
  think you get this a lot when you actually read
• 2:33:44
  through an article. The headline is the sensational part that
• 2:33:48
  gets you to read further. But if you do take
• 2:33:52
  the time to actually read through, often you know the
• 2:33:55
  claims are very much downplayed, but not always. That's why
• 2:34:00
  you have to read things. And then, of course, the
• 2:34:03
  other meta angle on this is, you know how much
• 2:34:07
  we're putting our trust and faith in you know, AI
• 2:34:10
  and these AI modeling techniques, what they want you to
• 2:34:15
  make the jump to believe is to say, well, then
• 2:34:18
  it's impossible that Jesus, our Lord and Savior was resurrected
• 2:34:24
  at all. And of course that's uh the main line
• 2:34:30
  of argumentation, you know, coming from the Jews and the
• 2:34:35
  Muslims and atheists. Human beings don't resurrect, therefore impossible without
• 2:34:48
  actually considering the evidence that we do have. And this
• 2:34:52
  is a pattern when you're lying, when you're covering up
• 2:34:56
  like obvious, you know, questions that need to be answered.
• 2:35:02
  Your objections are more emotional and less scientific. But then
• 2:35:10
  they turn around that and say that science is on
• 2:35:13
  their side. But I want to move on to our
• 2:35:16
  next story. And you know, I could talk about Trump
• 2:35:23
  announcing that he's going to release the UFO files. Surely
• 2:35:33
  not as a distraction from the Epstein files. I could
• 2:35:38
  talk about Israel and Iran popping off. You know, world
• 2:35:43
  War three, it's always world War three is right on
• 2:35:47
  the doorstep. I mean, we are falling so fast into
• 2:35:53
  the matrix, like I can't even keep up with all
• 2:35:57
  the news and stuff. But I did see this, and
• 2:36:00
  I did want to comment on this. Before you know,
• 2:36:03
  it disappears into the memory whole of science, the ministry
• 2:36:08
  of truth, because this is an important conversation. And we've
• 2:36:13
  all heard for years and years that humans and chimpanzees
• 2:36:19
  share ninety eight percent of their DNA. Therefore, you know,
• 2:36:25
  they're more like us, or we evolved from them, or
• 2:36:28
  we had a common ancestor, because you know, ninety eight percent.
• 2:36:33
  And I was always skeptical of that figure, and I
• 2:36:37
  would say, well, that two percent, you know, must really
• 2:36:40
  make a lot of difference, because to me, the differences
• 2:36:44
  between human beings and chimpanzees or other apes, other primates
• 2:36:49
  is extraordinary. I mean, we share some of the same parts.
• 2:36:55
  We uh share the same you know, sort of design printnciples.
• 2:37:01
  We share some of the same facial expressions, we have emotions,
• 2:37:06
  we have societies. Yeah, but so do bees, so do elephants,
• 2:37:12
  so do dolphins. On my side of the argument, I say, well,
• 2:37:19
  that's because we share the same designer, and we see
• 2:37:25
  the principles of design in creation all around us. It's mathematical,
• 2:37:33
  it's brilliant. We can't crack the code. So I think
• 2:37:41
  it actually argues against the evolutionary theory. But let me
• 2:37:50
  read the article doctor Luskin on human chimp genetic differences
• 2:37:57
  and why they matter. And this is written by Wesley J.
• 2:38:02
  Smith for the Science and Culture Today Science Andculture dot com. Chimpanzees,
• 2:38:12
  we are told, are the closest relatives to human beings. Indeed,
• 2:38:17
  for years, scientists claimed that there is only about a
• 2:38:20
  one percent difference separating the human genome from that of chimps.
• 2:38:26
  Some advocates even claimed that means humans are mostly chimps,
• 2:38:30
  or that chimps are mostly human, eroting the principle of
• 2:38:34
  human exceptionalism. But research published last year disclosed that the
• 2:38:41
  one percent difference was badly off the mark, and that
• 2:38:45
  the true genetic difference between humans and chimps is about
• 2:38:48
  fifteen percent. But what does the genetic difference statistic mean
• 2:38:56
  scientifically and whether one percent or fifteen does it matter morally?
• 2:39:03
  So we have a Science and Culture article questioning morality.
• 2:39:10
  These are moral questions. Evolution is a moral question. For
• 2:39:16
  a new episode of the Humanized Podcast, I invited one
• 2:39:20
  of Discovery Institute's premier scholars to discuss these new findings
• 2:39:25
  and the meaning of it all. Doctor Casey Luskin is
• 2:39:28
  a scientist and attorney with a PhD in geology. Geology
• 2:39:33
  not genetics, genealogy, geology. Okay a PhD in geology from
• 2:39:47
  the University of Johannesburg and a law degree from the
• 2:39:52
  University of San Diego. He also holds BS and MS
• 2:39:56
  degrees in Earth sciences from the University of California, Santa
• 2:40:00
  Diego and as a California licensed attorney. He works at
• 2:40:05
  Discovery Institute as Associate director and Research director for the
• 2:40:08
  Center for Science and Culture, where he directs the ID
• 2:40:12
  three point zero Research program and assists and defends scientists, educators,
• 2:40:19
  and students who seek to freely study, research, and teach
• 2:40:23
  about the scientific debate over Darwinian evolution and intelligent design.
• 2:40:31
  He has co written, co edited, and contributed to many
• 2:40:34
  books on ID is a sought after public speaker and
• 2:40:38
  a prolific media commentator. Okay, there's a link where you
• 2:40:43
  can download his podcast. Okay, did I choose a not
• 2:40:49
  so great source? I think I did. Let me do
• 2:40:53
  a quick search here and see if I can find
• 2:40:55
  this story somewhere else. Since I am seemingly unprepared for this, Okay,
• 2:41:19
  you can stop. Now do humans and chimps really share
• 2:41:24
  nearly ninety nine percent of their DNA? Now? This one
• 2:41:27
  I found in Live Science. I heard about them. Now
• 2:41:34
  this is important because you have to do research. You
• 2:41:37
  can't rely on AI to do your searching for you,
• 2:41:40
  and you're reading for you, and you're summarizing for you. Now,
• 2:41:46
  the other stories seem to be originating from this Discovery Institute,
• 2:41:54
  but this sounds a little bit more scientifically rigorous, So
• 2:42:01
  this does appear to be a legitimate study. The frequently
• 2:42:06
  cited ninety nine percent similarity between human and chimp DNA
• 2:42:11
  overlooks key differences in the genomes. Chimpanzees, along with bonobos,
• 2:42:20
  are human's closest living relatives. In fact, you may have
• 2:42:24
  heard that humans and chimps share ninety eight point eight
• 2:42:27
  percent of their DNA, But is this actually true and
• 2:42:32
  what does similar DNA actually mean? The truth is that
• 2:42:37
  the frequently cited ninety eight point eight percent similarity between
• 2:42:41
  chimp and human DNA overlooks key differences in the species' genomes.
• 2:42:48
  Experts told Live Science, human and chimp DNA is made
• 2:42:53
  of four basic building blocks or nucleotides at A nine,
• 2:42:59
  guana nine, cytosine, and thymine. The genomes of both species
• 2:43:07
  can be thought of as a string of the letters, ACG,
• 2:43:11
  and T about three billion letters long, David Housler, scientific
• 2:43:19
  director at the UC Santa Cruz Genomics Institute, told Life
• 2:43:24
  Science in an email. When scientists compare human and chimp DNA,
• 2:43:29
  they identify the letter nucleotide sequence in both genomes and
• 2:43:34
  look for stretches of DNA where there is a lot
• 2:43:37
  of overlap between the two genomes. Then they count the
• 2:43:40
  number of matching letters in these regions. Quote. It's like
• 2:43:45
  comparing one version of a very long novel to another
• 2:43:49
  very slightly edited version. Housler said. Early research suggested that
• 2:43:56
  human and chimp genomes are more than ninety eight percent idea.
• 2:44:01
  What it means is that for each part of the
• 2:44:03
  human genome where the chimp has a corresponding DNA sequence,
• 2:44:08
  on average, one out of one hundred nucleotides is different unquote,
• 2:44:14
  explained Katie Pollard, director of the Gladstone Institute of Data
• 2:44:20
  Science and Biotechnology at the University of California, San Francisco.
• 2:44:29
  For context, humans share about ninety nine point nine percent
• 2:44:33
  of their DNA with each other, Housler said, so even
• 2:44:38
  within human beings, there's a zero point one percent variation
• 2:44:43
  in our DNA between just each other in the same species,
• 2:44:49
  so that sort of puts the number also in perspective. Now,
• 2:44:54
  the rest of this discusses sort of the complex nature
• 2:44:59
  of DNA C sequencing, which I don't really understand a
• 2:45:02
  whole lot, admittedly, and so I'm not going to bore
• 2:45:05
  you with all the details. If you want to read
• 2:45:07
  this complete article, then you will find a link to
• 2:45:12
  this also in the show notes. But that's about all
• 2:45:16
  the time that we have for this episode of Ministry X.
• 2:45:21
  I want to thank you for listening. Do you have
• 2:45:23
  any comments, do you have any questions, do you have
• 2:45:26
  any concerns? Also, do you have a testimony, do you
• 2:45:30
  have a book that you've written? Do you have any
• 2:45:33
  suggestions for topics you'd like us to discuss on the show,
• 2:45:37
  Then please send me an email ministry X at proton
• 2:45:45
  mail dot com. Ministriekis at ProtonMail dot com. Also follow
• 2:45:51
  me on X at fr N underscore Daniel Underscore X.
• 2:45:59
  That's where I'm most active, I would say on the
• 2:46:01
  social media's but do me a big favor and share
• 2:46:06
  a link to the show on your social media. That's
• 2:46:10
  a great way to help out the podcast without spending
• 2:46:13
  a dime. And again go to Fringe radionetwork dot com
• 2:46:17
  and download the Fringe Radio Network app for Android or
• 2:46:20
  Apple devices. Also, you can go to fringe radionetwork dot
• 2:46:24
  com slash donate if you'd like to donate and help
• 2:46:27
  all the podcasts on the network that goes through PayPal.
• 2:46:31
  And as always, until next time, beware the Alien Savior.
• 2:46:38
  Thank you for listening.
• 2:47:28
  Speaker 1: Hi everybody, it's me Cinderella Acts. You are listening to
• 2:47:33
  the Fringe Radio Network.
• 2:47:36
  Speaker 2: I know I was gonna tell him, Hey, do you
• 2:47:39
  have the app? It's the best way to listen to
• 2:47:42
  the Fringe Radio Network. It's safe and you don't have
• 2:47:45
  to log in to use it, and it doesn't track
• 2:47:48
  you or trace you, and it sounds beautiful.
• 2:47:52
  Speaker 4: I know I was gonna tell him, How do you
• 2:47:54
  get the app? Just go to fringe radionetwork dot com
• 2:47:59
  right at the top with the page.
• 2:48:01
  Speaker 3: I know, slippers, we gotta keep cleaning these chimneys.
• 2:48:09
  Speaker 1: Mhm.