'I don’t know anyone that really feels safe in Chicago'

AC/DC formed in Sydney, Australia in 1973, founded by Scottish-born brothers Malcolm and Angus Young. The band quickly established itself as pioneers of hard rock and heavy metal with their raw, blues-influenced sound and electrifying live performances. Angus Young’s schoolboy uniform stage persona and wild guitar antics became iconic, while the band’s straightforward, riff-driven approach to rock music set them apart from their more experimental contemporaries. Their early albums, such as High Voltage and T.N.T., showcased a band that was unapologetically loud, energetic, and committed to pure rock and roll. The band achieved massive international success throughout the late 1970s and 1980s, becoming one The post Top 10 AC/DC Albums Covers appeared first on ClassicRockHistory.com.

The Democrat mayor of Washington, D.C., will partner with the Trump administration to fight crime in the nation’s capital, she announced Tuesday. Mayor Muriel Bowser issued an order saying that the Safe and Beautiful Emergency Operations Center will continue to manage the city’s response to the presidential declaration of emergency and the Safe and Beautiful Task Force, which Trump created by executive order in March. The order “continues the work” of “the presidential declaration of emergency.” Last month, President Donald Trump invoked the District of Columbia Home Rule Act of 1973 to declare an emergency in the District, authorizing him to federalize the D.C. police until Sept. 10. The White House praised Bowser for supporting the president’s effort to clean up the streets of the nation’s capital. “President Trump’s efforts to crack down on crime in D.C. have yielded tremendous results in such a short time: Violent crime has plummeted, and dangerous criminals are being removed from the streets every single night,” White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said in a statement shared with The Daily Signal. “The Trump administration is grateful to continue partnering with Mayor Bowser to make D.C. the safest city in the country.” “The mayor’s fellow Democrats should take note: Working with President Trump means safer communities and less crime. No one in their right mind could seriously oppose that,” Leavitt added. The mayor has been “very helpful” in fighting crime, Trump said at a Tuesday afternoon news conference. “I would love to receive calls from governors and mayors saying they need help,” he said. “We’ll help them. We have a lot of people. We have a great force. We have a great military force.” Last week, Bowser thanked the Trump administration for the surge of law enforcement to the city. “We greatly appreciate the surge of officers that enhance what [the Metropolitan Police Department] has been able to do in this city,” she said in a Wednesday news conference. “The difference between this 20-day period of this federal surge and last year represents an 87% reduction in carjackings,” Bowser added. The post Democrat DC Mayor Announces Unlikely Alliance With Trump to Fight Crime appeared first on The Daily Signal.

A federal appeals court sided with the Trump administration Tuesday, clearing the way for it to continue terminating $16 billion in “climate” grants to nonprofits to reportedly reduce greenhouse gas emissions. A split panel of the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for D.C. ruled 2-1 to overturn U.S. District Judge Tanya S. Chutkan’s order that blocked the administration from withholding the grants. The appeals court held that Chutkan, an Obama appointee, lacked the authority to block the grants, calling her attempt to do so an “abuse … [of] discretion.” This isn’t the first such reversal for Chutkan. In March, the appeals court struck down an order she issued requiring Elon Musk and the Department of Government Efficiency to turn over documents relating to DOGE’s activities and future plans. That isn’t all. In late October 2023, Chutkan issued a gag order in one of Trump’s cases challenging the 2020 election outcome. Less than a week later, the same appeals court temporarily halted her order. It ultimately overturned her order in part and upheld it in part. Now, Chutkan finds another one of her orders struck down on appeal yet again.  Tuesday’s case concerns grants awarded by Biden’s Environmental Protection Agency in August 2024 as part of its “National Clean Investment Fund” and “Clean Communities Investment Accelerator” initiatives. The funds were held in government-controlled Citibank accounts from which nonprofit awardees could withdraw them. The nonprofits included the Climate United Fund, the Coalition for Green Capital, the Justice Climate Fund, Inc., and others. But in early 2025, President Donald Trump’s EPA decided to terminate the grants, citing conflicts of interest and a lack of government oversight. In one instance, it alleged the former director of the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund—an EPA program created by the Inflation Reduction Act—personally oversaw a $5 billion grant to his previous employer. But five of the nonprofit grantees—with grants totaling $16 billion—sued, saying Trump’s decision was unconstitutional, unlawful, and “arbitrary and capricious.” In March, Chutkan sided with the nonprofits, preventing the EPA from clawing back the grant money from the Citibank accounts.  Tuesday’s appeals court decision vacates her order, giving the Trump administration the go-ahead to remove the funds. The post Federal Court Overturns Judge’s Decision—Again appeared first on The Daily Signal.

“We cannot deter China in this state of industrial atrophy,” Rep. Riley Moore, R-W.Va., declared on Tuesday at the fifth National Conservatism Conference in Washington. The West Virginia lawmaker, who some see as a rising star in the Republican Party, outlined how it would take U.S. reindustrialization to credibly deter China in an age of uncertainty about the fate of Taiwan and threats across the globe. Moore detailed the current advantages the Chinese Communist Party has over the United States.  “China produces more than half of the world’s steel, fueling its infrastructure and military. We’ve let our steel industry atrophy, importing from abroad, while our steel mills rust. This is not just an economic failure. It’s a strategic one,” Moore said.  He also noted the strategic vulnerability of America in its reliance on importing semiconductor chips from abroad. “These chips power everything from smartphones to missile systems. Yet the U.S. produces less than 12% of the world’s supply, while Taiwan’s TSMC dominates. If China invades Taiwan, our military and domestic economy will grind to a halt,” Moore explained. The West Virginia legislator elaborated on how even American pharmaceuticals rely on Chinese production. “Our nearly complete dependence on China to supply more than 80% of the active ingredients in pharmaceuticals gives them serious leverage,” he said, adding: China’s ability to wield our industrial weakness against us decreases our credible deterrence over Taiwan and increases the odds of China invading. “Are we going to come to Taiwan’s aid if it means that pharmacy shelves across America are suddenly empty? This answer is vital to China’s calculation of whether to invade Taiwan,” he added. Moore then laid out what it would take to rebuild the American industrial base and restore American strength. “Deterrence is a framework for grappling with those choices. It is a commitment to focusing our energies, rebuilding our industrial might, and unleashing the energy to power a 21st-century industrial base. It’s a rejection of overreach in favor of strength of focus instead of distraction,” he said.  In particular, the congressman emphasized the need to expand America’s energy production to power American manufacturing. “For the first time in my lifetime, a president took a stand for coal, signing executive orders promoting domestic coal production. But we need to go further. We must become a global juggernaut with an ‘all of the below the ground‘ approach to energy. Coal, oil, natural gas, and nuclear must power our path to energy dominance,” Moore said.  Moore also joined Heritage Foundation president Kevin Roberts on Tuesday in praising longtime conservative stalwart Pat Buchanan, an assistant to three Republican presidents and a three-time candidate for president himself, for his prescience on the current issues facing the United States. “Buchanan was right about pretty much everything, 20 years before anyone even realized it, including his recognition that Iraq was not in alignment with our strategic national interests,” the West Virginian contended, noting that he had sent a letter to President Donald Trump recommending Buchanan, now 86, for the Presidential Medal of Freedom.  “America will build again, power again, and deter again. Not everywhere. Not always. But where it matters most, with a strength that none can match,” Moore concluded. The post West Virginia Lawmaker Outlines What It Will Take to Credibly Deter China appeared first on The Daily Signal.

Noem to CBS News Guests: Eff It, You'd Better Do It Live

Yet again, the propagandists at CBS have found themselves in the midst of another deceptive editing scandal. On Sunday, the network was caught editing out the substantive portion of one of Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem’s responses to a question on Face the Nation.  But this incident is just the latest in CBS’s lengthy record of journalistic malfeasance. Let’s look back at some of the worst cases.   1) SCRUBBING THE “MARYLAND MAN’S” CRIMINAL HISTORY FROM THE RECORD First, we ought to address this latest example of CBS’s nasty deceptive editing habit. While explaining her agency’s intention to deport Kilmar Abrego Garcia, the notorious “Maryland man” (read: illegal alien from El Salvador), Noem rattled off some highlights from his colorful criminal past.  Yet when the interview actually aired on Face the Nation, that entire part of her answer had been inexplicably cut from the segment:     ED O'KEEFE:  One of the most high profile examples of someone who's been rounded up by ICE in recent months is Kilmar Abrego Garcia, and the fate of his situation is still up in the air. He's awaiting trial on human smuggling charges set for January in Tennessee, but your department is also working to get him deported to Uganda. If he broke the law in this country, as the administration alleges, shouldn't he be held here and face charges here instead of being deported? KRISTI NOEM: Well, prosecution decisions are always made by the Department of Justice and in Pam Bondi's department, so we will let them do that. Although this individual does have criminal charges pending. He has charges pending against him civilly as well, and the one thing that we will continue to do is to make sure that he doesn't walk free in the United States of America.  [PORTION OF NOEM’S RESPONSE EXCISED FROM BROADCAST]: This individual was a known human smuggler, MS-13 gang member, an individual who was a wife beater and someone who was so perverted that he solicited nude photos from minors and even his fellow human traffickers told him to knock it off. He was so sick in what he was doing and how he was treating small children, so he needs to never be in the United States of America, and our administration is making sure we're doing all that we can to bring him to justice.*  Outraged, Noem took to social media, where she posted the full, unedited version of her response. After considerable backlash, CBS ended up posting the raw footage on their website.   2) CLEANING UP KAMALA HARRIS’S WORD SALAD ON ISRAEL In July, CBS parent company Paramount reached a $16,000,000 settlement with President Trump over their selective editing of a 2024 interview with then-presidential candidate Kamala Harris. The Federal Communications Commission in February compelled CBS to turn over the full, unedited transcript of Harris’s interview, which they subsequently released to the public. After reviewing the clips of the interview that aired on 60 Minutes and Face the Nation, and comparing those to the freshly-released transcript, NewsBusters was able to confirm that the network done a pretty thorough cleanup job on Harris’s nonsensical answer to a question about Israel:     [BOTH 60 MINUTES AND FTN] BILL WHITAKER: We supply Israel with billions of dollars in military aid, and yet, Prime Minister Netanyahu seems to be charting his own course. The Biden administration The Biden Harris administration has pressed him to agree to a ceasefire. He's resisted. You urged him not to go into Lebanon. He went in anyway. He has promised to make Iran pay for the missile attack, and that has the potential of expanding the war. Does the US have no sway over Prime Minister Netanyahu? [ONLY ON FTN] KAMALA HARRIS: Well, let's start with this— um — on this subject. The aid that we have given Israel allowed Israel to defend itself against 200 ballistic missiles. That were just meant to attack the Israelis and the people of Israel. And I think that is the most recent example of why what we do to assist in their defense around military aid is important. And when we think about the threat that Hamas, Hezbollah presents, Iran — um — I think that it is without any question our imperative to do what we can to allow Israel to defend itself against those kinds of attacks… [60 MINUTES ANSWER STARTS HERE] HARRIS: …Now, the work that we do diplomatically with the leadership of Israel is an ongoing pursuit around making clear our principles… [ONLY ON FTN] HARRIS: …which include the need for humanitarian aid, the need for this war to end, the need for a deal to be done, which would release the hostages and — and — and create a ceasefire and we're not gonna stop in terms of putting that pressure on Israel and and in the region including with other leaders in the region, including Arab leaders. (…) [BOTH 60 MINUTES AND FTN] WHITAKER: But it seems that Prime Minister Netanyahu is not listening. [THIS PART NOT ON 60 MINUTES NOR FTN] WHITTAKER: Um, The Wall Street Journal said that your administration has repeatedly been blindsided by Netanyahu, and, in fact, he has rebuffed just about all of your administration's entreaties. [ONLY ON FTN] HARRIS: Well Bill, the work that we have done has resulted in a number of movements in that region by Israel that were very much prompted by or a result of many things including our advocacy for what needs to happen in the region and we're not gonna stop doing that… [60 MINUTES ANSWER STARTS HERE]: …we're not gonna stop pursuing what is necessary for the United States to be clear about where we stand on the need for this war to end.   3) MIKE JOHNSON GETS THE KRISTI NOEM TREATMENT In October of 2024, the network pulled a similar trick on House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA), slicing out five minutes out of a fifteen-minute interview, in which he made some points that CBS apparently deemed too compelling to air. Like Noem, Johnson immediately posted the removed portions of his interview on X, which, of course, consisted entirely of substantive responses from the Speaker which added meaningful context to his full answers. Below is the most egregious example he shared:     MARGARET BRENNAN: Respectfully, Speaker, you both, in the course of this interview, said that you do believe that states have taken measures that will help the integrity of this election SPEAKER MIKE JOHNSON: That's true- BRENNAN: – and then you just also seem to undermine confidence in the integrity of the state elections– JOHNSON: No, no. Margaret. Hold on. Wait a minute. Wait, wait just a minute. It's not me undermining it. It's the actions of the Biden-Harris administration and some of these states. Noncitizens are not allowed to vote under federal law. [UNAIRED PORTION] BRENNAN: Right JOHNSON: But the states have prohibited it. We passed the SAVE act. You know, in the house, the SAVE Act says you gotta have proof of citizenship before you register to vote. And Chuck Schumer and the Democrats blocked that in the Senate. We could have prevented this, the questions that people have about that, but the Democrats chose not to. They opened the border wide. A lot of people theorize that that was so that they could have non citizens to vote. These are realities, Margaret. I wish it weren't true, but that's what's, that's the concern that people have. And Wisconsin– [CROSSTALK] BRENNAN: – But, but. People can have lots of concerns, but it is already law that noncitizens cannot vote in federal elections. JOHNSON: It is a law. That's correct, but we have to make sure the law is followed. And that is the whole point. That has always been the whole point of the SAVE Act and all the measures that we've tried to ensure. I believe, by my count, we have about 16 million illegal aliens in the country since Mayorkas and Harris and Biden opened the border wide. And because of that, there's concern, because those people are distributed all around the country, as you know, there's concern some of those people will try to participate in the elections. Look, some of our House races. I believe the Republicans are going to win the House, grow the House majority, win the Senate and the White House. But in some of our House races, I mean, I have a colleague who was elected by six votes in 2020. Some of these are decided by hundreds or a few 1000s of votes. So if you have non citizens participating against the law, and you have no mechanism in some states to stop it. That is the root of so much of the concern. And of course, you know, in California, they have ballot harvesting right? Ballot harvesting is notorious for opening the door for fraud in Wisconsin, they're going to put— BRENNAN: — Mr. Speaker, you seem to be JOHNSON: – In some counties unmanned ballot boxes in public parks, again BRENNAN: Contradicting yourself. The states are run by the state government– JOHNSON: No. I'm stating the facts, Margaret. BRENNAN: – Not the federal government. JOHNSON: That's right. That's correct. And that's yeah we hope and pray- [AIRED PORTION RESUMES] BRENNAN: So if your issue is with certain governors, shouldn't you be talking to them?  JOHNSON: We have been- we have been and the Republican governors have done heroic work. They've done their own audits of the voter rolls to try to ensure and do their best duty to make sure that this is a free, fair and legal election. We're calling on all the governors to do the same thing, Democrat governors as well, and Democrat led states in the legislature, they need to do the same thing.   4) TRUMP BRINGS THE RECEIPTS ON HUNTER'S LAPTOP, GETS MEMORY HOLED In October of 2020, just weeks before the presidential election, 60 Minutes ran a heavily edited interview with then-President Trump. At the time, the corporate media were involved in a concerted blackout of any and all information about Hunter Biden’s notorious laptop, and so, naturally, the network sliced almost every instance in which Trump brought it up. Naturally, Trump posted a raw recording to Twitter, which exposed just how thoroughly the show had tampered with the interview:     LESLEY STAHL: So this story about Hunter and his laptop, some repair shop found it, the source is Steve Bannon and Rudy Giuliani. PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: I don’t know anything about that. I just know it’s a laptop and they haven’t- STAHL: And you’re making this one of the hottest, most important issues... TRUMP: I don’t know about the two gentlemen you mentioned. STAHL: It’s an important issue- TRUMP: It’s a very important issue to find out whether or not a man is corrupt, who’s running for president. Who’s accepted money from China, and from Ukraine, and from Russia. Yeah, I think that’s an important issue. STAHL: All these things have been investigated and discredited. TRUMP: It’s incredible the way you can try and say this and sit there and look me in the eye and say it. He accepted money, his family, from Russia, from Ukraine, from China and from other places. His brother who didn’t have experience became a big builder in Iraq, without experience. Take a look at what’s going on, Lesley. And then you say that shouldn’t be discussed? It’s the biggest scandal out there, Lesley. STAHL: And you think it’s the biggest issue to campaign on? TRUMP: I think it’s one of the biggest scandals I’ve ever seen, and you don’t cover it. You want to talk about- STAHL: Well, because it can’t be verified. TRUMP: You want to talk about insignificant things. STAHL: I’m telling you. TRUMP: Of course it can be verified. Excuse me, they found a laptop. Lesley, listen. STAHL: It can’t be verified. TRUMP: What can’t be verified? STAHL: The laptop. TRUMP: Why do you say that? Even the family hasn’t… The family on the laptop… He’s gone into hiding for five days, he’s gone into hiding. STAHL: He’s preparing for your debate. TRUMP: Oh, it’s taking him five days to prepare? I doubt it, I doubt it. Okay, go ahead   5) 60 MINUTES FALSELY ACCUSES DESANTIS, THEN EDITS OUT HIS REBUTTAL In April of 2021, 60 Minutes aired CBS correspondent Sharon Alfonsi’s deceptive hit piece accusing Florida Governor Ron DeSantis (R) of engaging in a “pay for play” scheme involving COVID-19 vaccines. The segment included a clip of Alfonsi confronting the governor at a press conference, in which he seemingly dodged her question and declared the issue settled without providing any evidence. But that clip excluded nearly two substantive minutes in which DeSantis explicitly debunked Alfonsi’s accusations, piece by piece. In removing that part of the Governor’s answer, Alfonsi warped his detailed rebuttal into a dismissive dodge. Below is a video from the Daily Caller showing the edited exchange aired by 60 Minutes, followed by the portion they left out:  

On Friday morning's The National Report on Newsmax, reporter Jason Mattera presented a piece highlighting evidence that the mass shooter in Minneapolis chose to target a school in part because it was a gun-free zone, citing the Crime Prevention Research Center's Dr. John Lott. After recalling the reflexive demand for more gun control by both journalists and Democrats, Mattera informed viewers of the rarely reported fact that mass shooters sometimes openly admit in their manifestos that they chose to target a place where guns were banned because it would be easier to kill a large number of defenseless people. The reporter began: Yes, progressives, right out of the gate -- Jacob Frey, Amy Klobuchar, members of the legacy media -- they were saying, "Skip the thoughts and prayers -- we need gun action now." But what if the way to stop these school massacres is to read the killer's own words. That means look at their manifestos and see why they chose the targets.     Then came a clip of Dr. Lott: "How much more explicit can they be than saying they want to go to a place where their victims aren't armed so they can go and kill more people?" The report then got to the problem of the media hiding the truth from the public: MATTERA: John Lott at the Crime Prevention Research Center says the why isn't mysterious. Attackers like the Minneapolis trans shooter pick easy marks where they can run up a body count before anyone can fire back. LOTT: If the media even once in a while would quote these parts of their manifestos and diaries, the entire gun control debate that we have right now would be dramatically different. People would be focusing on getting rid of the gun-free zones. Mattera soon related that the Minneapolis killer wrote about the Aurora gunman from 2012 choosing a gun-free zone for his target, and then admitted that he had chosen a school for the same reason: For instance, according to Lott, the Minneapolis trans killer wrote in his manifesto that the Aurora movie theater shooter in 2012, quote, "may have chosen venues that were gun-free zones. I probably aim the same way," adding that he wants to make -- wanted to make sure his victims would be unarmed. "That's why I and others like schools so much." The piece went on to show a clip of Dr. Lott recalling evidence that the thousands of schools that arm their staff never have any deadly shootings during school hours, which can be also be accessed on the Crime Prevention Research Center's website. Data also show that the overwhelming majority of public mass shootings took place in gun-free zones generally. The transcript is below. Click "expand" to read: Newsmax's The National Report August 29, 2025 9:03 a.m. Eastern SHAUN KRAISMAN: Meantime, as you may have seen here, Democrats already calling for gun control, this in the wake of that deadly shooting. But the killer's own manifesto spells out the strategy: pick soft gun-free zones. EMMA RECHENBERG: Our crime correspondent, Jason Mattera, has some more details on where we're at today. Jason, good morning. JASON MATTERA: Good morning, Shaun and Emma. Yes, progressives, right out of the gate -- Jacob Frey, Amy Klobuchar, members of the legacy media -- they were saying, "Skip the thoughts and prayers -- we need gun action now." But what if the way to stop these school massacres is to read the killer's own words. That means look at their manifestos and see why they chose the targets. Dr. JOHN LOTT, CRIME RESEARCH CENTER: How much more explicit can they be than saying they want to go to a place where their victims aren't armed so they can go and kill more people? MATTERA: John Lott at the Crime Prevention Research Center says the why isn't mysterious. Attackers like the Minneapolis trans shooter pick easy marks where they can run up a body count before anyone can fire back. LOTT: If the media even once in a while would quote these parts of their manifestos and diaries, the entire gun control debate that we have right now would be dramatically different. People would be focusing on getting rid of the gun-free zones. MATTERA: For instance, according to Lott, the Minneapolis trans killer wrote in his manifesto that the Aurora movie theater shooter in 2012, quote, "may have chosen venues that were gun-free zones. I probably aim the same way," adding that he wants to make -- wanted to make sure his victims would be unarmed. "That's why I and others like schools so much." LOTT: I don't know how much clearer these guys can make it. There are literally dozens of similar statements like that over the years, going all the way back to Columbine, and yet the media refuse to go and say why he picked that target based on the fact that he wanted to go to a place where his victims weren't able to defend themselves. MATTERA: As the "do something" chorus swells, Lott says "something" never includes arming trained teachers and staff even though he argues it could be the best way to stop an active shooter.   LOTT: We have over 10,000 schools in the United States that have armed teachers and staff, okay? Many of those have had them for decades. There has not been one attack at any of those schools that allow armed teachers and staff to be able to go and carry where anybody has been wounded or killed during school hours. MATTERA: Now, Shaun and Emma, in order for that to happen in Minnesota, the law would need to change because it's currently a felony to possess or store a firearm on school grounds, and Lott argues that these predators know that, and they view it as an invitation to go and attack. So, rather than outlawing the good guy with a gun on campus, maybe you should have more of them...

A recently discovered medieval document is being hailed as the earliest written mention of the Shroud of Turin. Its author, Nicole Oresme, the learned Bishop of Lisieux, writing around 1370, claims the Shroud is a forgery. Some have rushed to seize on this fragment as if it were a fatal blow to the Shroud’s authenticity.But is it?To treat this new discovery as proof that the Shroud is a forgery means ignoring the massive wealth of evidence that indicates its authenticity.Historian Nicolas Sarzeaud’s recent article uses Oresme’s passage as basis for rejecting the Shroud. However, the facts reveal more fallacy than forgery. In the ongoing debate about the Shroud’s authenticity, the question is what this discovery actually means. Imagine a set of scales. On one side rests the enormous weight of historical, scientific, and forensic evidence pointing to the Shroud’s authenticity. On the other side, we now place this solitary note from a skeptical medieval bishop.So does this new discovery tip the balance? The answer is a resounding no — and here's why.Reason 1: The inexplicable imagePicture yourself in 1370. You live in a pre-scientific, pre-photographic world, and your thoughtful approach to faith makes you skeptical of the mania for relics at that time. You hear reports of a mysterious cloth bearing the image of a crucified man, said to be Jesus.What would you think? Most likely, your first reaction would be, “Someone must have painted it.” And as a product of his time, that is exactly what Oresme assumed.But Oresme had no access to modern science — or to the groundbreaking work of the 1978 Shroud of Turin Research Project.After an exhaustive investigation, STURP concluded that the image was not created by pigment, stain, dye, paint, or any known artistic method. In fact, the image itself isn’t made of any substance that rests on top or is embedded in the weave of the cloth — it is a discoloration of the linen fibers themselves. When the Shroud is backlit, the image disappears, something no painting could replicate. Even more remarkably, the image is not the result of brush strokes; it is a photographic-negative-like image encoded with three-dimensional information.This means that whatever makes the image was not deposited on the cloth and that the image was not made by contact with a body, statue, or brush.Oresme had no framework for scientific thought and how to interpret such a phenomenon. In his world, images came only from the hand of an artist. The Shroud has revealed itself as an exception to the rule. In our world, the Shroud has defied every artistic or technological explanation. What seemed “obvious” in the 14th century has proven scientifically untenable today.And for historian Sarzeaud, the use of Oresme’s comments strikes me as strained, particularly when they are presented as if they were direct references to the Shroud itself. The move from a general critique of relics to the assumption that he meant the Shroud is more conjecture than evidence.Just as telling is Sarzeaud’s reliance on a modern interpretive framework while failing to engage seriously with the textile, historical, and iconographic data that challenge his conclusions.Reason 2: Corrupt corroborationIn Sarzeaud’s assertion that the Shroud is a forgery, he relies heavily on the previously oldest known mention of the Shroud, which is known as the d’Arcis Memorandum, written around 1390, in which Pierre d’Arcis, Bishop of Troyes, claimed the Shroud was painted. He includes the entire memo as evidence that the Shroud was considered a forgery as soon as it was first exhibited 35 years earlier. Although this is corroboration, Sarzeaud presents the memo without mentioning the controversy surrounding it. Sarzeaud fails as a historian and treats this as if it were a straightforward confirmation of Oresme’s skepticism. But the reality is far murkier.RELATED: Shroud of Turin debunked? Not even close — here's the truth claudiodivizia/iStock/Getty Images Plus First, there isn’t just one memo. Calling it “the memo” is misleading, since there are two surviving drafts that differ in tone and detail. The French scholar Ulysse Chevalier, who published the d’Arcis memo in the early 20th century, conflated the two versions into a single document — and then asserted, without proof, that it had been sent to Pope Clement VII. No such record exists in the Vatican archives, and there is no evidence that it was ever sent to the pope.Second, even within the memorandum, d’Arcis admits that his charge was based on hearsay: His predecessor supposedly knew the name of the forger but never revealed it. Modern scholarship has highlighted these inconsistencies, but Sarzeaud neglects to mention them. In other words, what he presents as solid corroboration rests on fragile ground.As historians, we must do better and not overreach in presenting the evidence as Sarzeaud has done.Reason 3: Earlier does not equal betterWe share Oresme’s skepticism of relics. I’ve visited the Saxony hometown of Johann Tetzel (1465-1519), the Dominican friar infamous for selling indulgences in the early 16th century. He was commissioned to raise money for the rebuilding of St. Peter’s Basilica in Rome. Tetzel became notorious for a jingle he reportedly used in his preaching to stir people to buy indulgences: “As soon as a coin in the coffer rings, the soul from purgatory springs.”Orsme was thinking, writing, and standing firm for Christian truth in a time rife with spiritual manipulation, and this influenced his overreaction to the Shroud. By the 14th century, Europe was rife with dubious relics. Skeptical observers like Oresme often dismissed any new devotional object as fraudulent.But what Oresme lacked — and what we now possess — is the benefit of centuries of scientific progress.It is true that Oresme’s fragment pushes the written record of the Shroud back to around 1370. And yes, having a mention of the Shroud so close to when it first appeared in Europe is noteworthy. But it doesn’t mean it carries more weight than other evidence.In fact, given the advent of the age of science and the technological advances since Oresme’s day, there is far more and far better evidence now than there was then.Think of it this way: Knowledge accumulates like compound interest. Every decade of careful research into the Shroud — microscopy, spectroscopy, blood chemistry, pollen analysis, and digital imaging — adds layers of data. To elevate a lone medieval opinion over the wealth of evidence gathered since 1978 is to confuse proximity with authority. Oresme’s comment is historically interesting, but evidentially it is a footnote, not a verdict.Sarzeaud does appeal to the 1988 radiocarbon test that dated the Shroud to 1260-1380 to support the claim that the Shroud is medieval. Once again, however, he does not mention the fierce debate surrounding the results or the work done since then that casts serious doubt on its validity.The very latest state of the evidence is the richest; we only gain more knowledge. To treat this new discovery as proof that the Shroud is a forgery means ignoring the massive wealth of evidence that indicates its authenticity. The new find only has force when isolated from the overwhelming contextual evidence.Reason 4: The 'forgery' claim falls apartThe fatal flaw in relying on this new document and the d’Arcis Memorandum as proof that the Shroud is a forgery is that the dots don’t connect.If the Shroud were obviously painted, as Oresme assumed, then why have the best scientists in the world — equipped with electron microscopes, chemical analysis, and cutting-edge imaging technology — failed to detect any paint, pigment, or dye responsible for the image?RELATED: New evidence indicates Shroud of Turin shows EXACT moment of resurrection Stefano Guidi/Getty ImagesDr. John Jackson, physicist and leader of the STURP team, cataloged 17 unique characteristics of the image on the Shroud — features that any genuine explanation must account for. Countless attempts to reproduce the image have fallen short. Photographs, paintings, and scorchings may imitate some features, but none replicate them all.The Shroud’s image remains, scientifically speaking, an unsolved phenomenon. This is the Achilles’ heel of the forgery theory: What was “obvious” to a 14th-century skeptic has been thoroughly disproven by modern analysis. The image is not a painting. The claim collapses under scrutiny.Weighing the evidenceNicole Oresme was right about one thing: Popular religious claims should be subjected to rigorous testing. As Sarzeaud himself quotes, Oresme insisted that such claims be examined through Scripture, credible testimony, and reason.Sarzeaud concludes, “For Oresme, popular beliefs must be critically examined through methodical analysis, using Scriptural authorities, credible testimonies, and arguments grounded in reason, with significant weight being given to the latter.”Yet in holding Sarzeaud to his own standard, his argument and conclusion fail. He has failed to critically examine the new Oresme passage with methodical analysis by ignoring the problems with the d’Arcis Memorandum. He has ignored the credible testimony of the scientific evidence and the compelling historical evidence of the Shroud's existence in history prior to appearing in Europe. He has overlooked the historical evidence placing the Shroud well before the 14th century.When all the evidence is placed on the scales, this newly found fragment does not tip the balance. Instead, it reminds us of an enduring truth: Skepticism is not new. From the beginning, voices have attempted to dismiss the Shroud as forgery or fabrication. But 2,000 years of history and a century of scientific inquiry testify otherwise. And by appealing only to selective evidence that agrees with his premise, Sarzeaud fails to ground his arguments in reason, but rather commits the fallacy of special pleading. The one thing Sarzeaud succeeds in is generating headlines by making something from nothing. Sarzeaud’s article may generate headlines, but it does not overturn the evidence.In the end, the Shroud continues to confront us with the same, unyielding mystery: the image of a crucified man, unlike any other in human history — a discovery that refuses to be explained away.

Witnesses have given conflicting stories surrounding the axe-wielding Scottish girl whose story has captured headlines.After a 12-year-old Scottish girl was charged with weapons possession, rumors swirled that she was fending off the pursuit of an unruly migrant, forcing her to wield both an axe and a large knife.Now, the accused immigrant has spoken out and provided a conflicting account that seemingly reveals one side is not telling the truth.'She has a severe concussion and swelling inside of her head.'"I never touched her. I didn't hit her, I swear on my life, I have a baby now. I would never hurt someone," Fatos Ali Dumana told the Daily Mail.Dumana, a 21-year-old Bulgarian immigrant, wondered why the 12-year-old girl was "messing" with him while possessing weapons."If I did hurt the girl, why didn't the police arrest me? They have done nothing to me," Dumana insisted. "They saw from the CCTV cameras from Farmfoods [supermarket] that she was stopping me go on my way to the shop."Dumana also alleged that another bystander witnessed him being attacked and labeled a "f***ing migrant.""I did not hit them; I am a human not an animal," he added.Police Scotland had previously told Blaze News through spokeswoman Lisa Smith that "no adults" were "arrested or charged" in relation to the same incident.However, a reporter claiming to have spoken to the 12-year-old girl's family, as well as another alleged independent witness, has provided an incredibly contradictory take on what happened that day.RELATED: Scottish police blame axe-wielding girl for altercation, reveal nationality of migrant An X user who goes by the name Aesthetica claimed to have spoken to and worked directly with the family in order to set up a fundraiser for to pay for the hospital bills of one of the girls allegedly present at the scene.According to the story attached to the fundraiser, the 12-year-old in question is named Lola and was accompanied by her sister Ruby, 13, and friend Mayah, 13. The story describes "foreign nationals" directing "inappropriate sexual remarks at Lola."After telling the "migrants" to leave them alone, one of the girls was "viciously attacked" by an adult female, the story alleged, who pulled her to the ground by her hair as "both migrants proceeded to kick Ruby in the head on the ground."It was at this point Lola allegedly retrieved an axe and knife to scare off the attackers, prompting the "foreign national" to film the aftermath.Ruby was allegedly hospitalized after the attack with a "severe concussion," but the migrants were not arrested, even though Lola was, leaving her as the alleged 12-year-old girl who was charged by Scottish police.Days later, a young girl purporting to be Mayah posted videos on TikTok corroborating the story from the fundraiser.RELATED: 14-year-old girl charged in UK after allegedly defending herself from migrant harasser — (@) TikTok user Mayah Anderson said she, Ruby, and Lola were present when a man made inappropriate remarks toward the 12-year-old. They told the man to stop, as he was speaking to a minor. As the altercation escalated, the alleged witness said that the man's sister attacked Ruby, allegedly causing head injuries."This is his sister. For everybody saying his wife, it's not his wife," the young girl claimed. "His sister then grabs my friend Ruby from behind, and both of them, the male and the female, jump on my friend, start kicking her in the head, punching her in the face. And she actually had to get sent to hospital. She has a severe concussion and swelling inside of her head."The girl claimed that the man told police and stated on social media that the woman is his sister.Anderson said that after she called police, Lola pulled out her weapons — which she had, unbeknownst to the group — and soon fled.The teen also alleged that the man in question acted violently while in police custody and even spit on them. X user Aesthetica told Blaze News that the family, including mother Elaine Thomson, has received threats and now fears speaking out publicly. The family has also run into problems obtaining hospital records, Aesthetica claims.Blaze News has reached out to Scottish police and asked about the claims regarding a man assaulting police and the child's alleged hospitalization, as well as access to any CCTV footage.Police Scotland had previously told Blaze News that revealing any information from the police report would violate Scottish law.Blaze News also attempted to contact Mayah Anderson, but the messages were not deliverable through social media.The fundraiser has reached over $115,000 USD at the time of this writing.Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!