Here is "2.6. The other marks (4): Plant images", which is part 15 of my series, "The Shroud of Turin." The previous post in this series was part 14, "2.6. The other marks (3): Dirt on foot and limestone." See the Contents page (part 1) for more information about this series. See also "Flower & plant images #31: The evidence is overwhelming that the Turin Shroud is Jesus' burial sheet!"
2. WHAT IS THE SHROUD OF TURIN?
2.6. THE OTHER MARKS (4): PLANT IMAGES
© Stephen E. Jones
Introduction As previously explained, by "other marks" is meant those significant marks on the Shroud of Turin which are not wounds (see "2.4. The wounds") or bloodstains (see "2.5. The Bloodstains"). In my previous two posts I covered the `poker holes' and the dirt on the man's foot and the limestone in that dirt. Again the order in which they are presented is from the most to the least obvious (not necessarily from the most to the least important).
Plant images In 1983 German physics teacher Dr Oswald Scheuermann noticed flower images on photographs of the Shroud[1]. In that same year Scheuermann communicated his discovery to Dr Alan Whanger, a Duke University Professor of Psychiatry[2], with whom he had been corresponding about experiments with high-voltage corona discharges[3] to produce Shroud-like images on linen[4].
[Above: One of Scheuermann's corona discharge images of a Chrysanthemum coronarium flower (left), a Chrysanthemum coronarium flower image visible on the Shroud (centre) and a drawing of a Chrysanthemum coronarium flower in Flora Palaestina (right)[5]]
Dr. Alan and Mary Whanger At the time Whanger and his wife Mary could not see any flower images on the Shroud[6]. Whanger's Shroud research involved working with a life-size copy of Giuseppe Enrie's high-quality 1931 monochrome photographs of the Shroud[7]. Then one day in 1985, out of the corner of his eye, Whanger noticed a flower image above and to the left of the Shroud man's head[8]. This he later identified from Flora Palaestina as a Chrysanthemum coronarium[9].
[Above (enlarge): Flower image near the head of the man on the Shroud: ShroudScope: Enrie Negative Vertical. The flower is a Chrysanthemum coronarium(see below), and is native to the Mediterranean and East Asia[10]. The flower image is clearer on Enrie's 1931 negative photograph. Note that the flower is actually on the man's left side[11] but on the Enrie negative photograph it appears to be on his right side because of mirror-reversal.]
Whanger's plant images Alan Whanger has tentatively identified images of 28 different plant species on the Shroud, which are sufficiently clear and complete to compare them with drawings in Flora Palaestina[12]. Of these 28 species, 23 are flowers, 3 are small bushes, and 2 are thorns[13 ]. All 28 plants grow in Israel, with 20 of them growing in and around Jerusalem itself, and the other 8 in the vicinity of Jerusalem[14]. All 28 plants would have been available in Jerusalem markets in a fresh state or growing along the roadside or in fields for picking on the day of Jesus' crucifixion[15] (see below).
Prof. Avinoam Danin In 1995 the Whangers were in Israel and were invited to the home of Dr. Avinoam Danin, Professor of Botany at The Hebrew University in Jerusalem and a world authority on the plants of Israel's[16]. The Whangers showed Prof. Danin some of their photographs of flower images on the Shroud and after less than a minute of looking at them he exclaimed, "Those are the flowers of Jerusalem!" [17]. In 1997 Prof. Danin visited the Whangers' home in North Carolina, USA, and after examining their claimed plant images on their life-size, high quality photographs of the Shroud, Danin stated that he agreed with 22 of the Whanger's 28 plant identifications, and of the remaining 6, Danin said that 3 are probably correct and the other 3 are possibly correct [18]. Besides Chrysanthemum coronarium, Prof. Danin identified on photographs of the Shroud, images of the rock rose (Cistus creticus) and the bean caper (Zygophyllum dumosum)[19]. He later identified across a range of photographs, including Enrie 1931, Pia 1898 and Miller 1978, images of Gundelia tournefortii, Capparis aegyptia, Pistacia lentiscus and Zygophyllum dumosum[20], amongst others. At the 1998 exposition of the Shroud Prof. Danin identified images of both Zygophyllum dumosum and Pistacia lentiscus on the Shroud[21], and at the 2000 exposition, Danin identified images of Gundelia tournefortii [22].
Geographic indicators Prof. Danin noted that Chrysanthemum coronarium was a widespread Mediterranean species that grows in most districts of Israel and Jordan[23]. But being widespread around the Mediterranean means that C. coronarium is not as useful as a geographical indicator[24]. Its value lies in it being one of the clearest plant images on the Shroud[25] being discernible with the unaided eye using any high resolution photograph of the Shroud[26]. However. Zygophyllum dumosum grows only in Israel, Jordan, and Sinai, therefore it's presence on the Shroud limits the Shroud's place of origin to that area[27]. Similarly, Capparis aegyptia grows only on the 
[Above: Distribution map of the endemic species Zygophyllum dumosum which is confined to Israel, Sinai and Western Jordan[28].]
Egyptian mainland, Sinai, and desert areas of Israel[29]. Gundelia tournefortii's distribution is Middle Eastern, extending from western Turkey through Israel, Syria and northern Iraq, Iran and the southernmost fringes of the former Soviet Union[30]. Cistus creticus grows across the Mediterranean zone in western Israel with a desert boundary to the east of Jerusalem[31]. The only place on earth where people could bring fresh parts of the four species Gundelia tournefortii , Zygophyllum dumosum, Cistus creticus and Capparis aegyptia, is the area between Jerusalem and Hebron"[32], a distance of a mere twenty miles (32 kilometres)[33].
[Above: Distribution map of the only place on earth where Gundelia tournefortii, Zygophyllum dumosum and Cistus creticus are all found growing together[34], the area around Jerusalem (green circle)[35].
Temporal indicators As well as being geographic indicators, some of the flower image species identified by Danin are also temporal (i.e. time of year and even time of day) indicators[36]. For example, Zygophyllum dumosum in the stage of bloom seen on the Shroud indicates that it was cut between the months of December and April as this is the only season when both leaf types and flowers are found together on the plant[37]. The blooming time of Chrysanthemum coronarium ia from March to May; that of Capparis aegyptia is between December and April; as is Zygophyllum dumosum's (as already mentioned); Cistus creticus blooms from March to June, and Gundelia tournefortii from March to May[38]. All these flowering period have in common the period between March and May, which was the very period of the year within which Jesus' Passover eve crucifixion (Mt 26:2; Jn 18:28,39; 19:14) occurred[39] (which was on April 7, 30, or April 3, 33)[40]. Capparis aegyptia is significant as an indicator for the time of day when its flowers were picked, since its flowering buds begin to open at about midday and gradually open until they are fully opened about half an hour before sunset[41]. Flowers seen as images on the Shroud correspond to them having been picked at about 3-4 PM[42], which corresponds to the time of the death of Jesus, "the ninth hour" (Mt 27:45-50; Mk 15:33-39; Lk 23:44-46), i.e. 3 pm[43].
Dr Max Frei's pollen Of the 28 species of plant images the Whangers' identified on the Shroud, these were the same or similar to 25 species of pollen collected from the Shroud and identified by Swiss criminologist, the late Dr Max Frei[44]. Some of the plant images on the Shroud confirms the identification of certain Palestinian and Middle Eastern species of pollen on the Shroud, which we will discuss in "6. Science and the Shroud"). For example, Gundelia tournefortii was one of the more abundant pollen species that Frei identified on the Shroud and Danin and Baruch have confirmed that identification[45]. And significantly, one of Danin's Cistus creticus images occurs in the very same spot that Frei in 1973 found pollen which he identified as Cistus creticus on the Shroud[46].
Other images The Whangers claim they have found tiny flower images on early coins and portraits of Christ[47]. Also, they claim to have found on the Shroud images of two lepton coins of Pontius Pilate, one over each eye, two desecrated Jewish phylacteries (or prayer boxes), one on the man's forehead and the other on his left arm, an amulet of Tiberius Caesar, a crucifixion nail, a Roman spear, a crown of thorns, a sponge tied to a reed (Mt 27:48; Mk 15:36; Jn 19:29), a hammer, a pair of pliers, two Roman flagrums, two sandals, a scoop, two brush brooms, a pair of dice, a coil of rope, several letters from the inscription "the King of the Jews" fixed to the Cross above Jesus' head (Mt 27:37; Mk 15:26, Lk 23:38; Jn 19:19), and possibly partial images of the cloak, the tunic and two more nails[48]. Apart from the images of the lepton coins for which there is good evidence (see next "2.6. The other marks (5): Coins over the eyes"), I am sceptical of the other non-plant images claimed by the Whangers to be on the Shroud. For example, it seems highly unlikely (to put it mildly) that the Roman soldiers would have allowed Jesus' disciples to take back His clothes, when the gospels record that the soldiers "divided his garments among them" (Mt 27:35; Mk 15:24; Lk 23:34; Jn 19:24), let alone valuable items like a Roman spear, hammer and pliers. And that the disciples would have the time, to collect all these items, especially the flagrums from the place where Jesus was scourged (presumably Pilate's Antonia fortress), and place them all inside the Shroud next to Jesus' body, given that the sabbath was imminent (Mt 27:57-60, Mk 15:42-46; Lk 23:50-54, John 19:38-42).
Faces in clouds? Ian Wilson who had visited the Whanger's home and looked at their claimed other non-plant objects on their life-sized, high quality, Shroud photographs was not convinced and dismissed them as akin to seeing "faces in clouds"[49]. But even Wilson had to admit that the chrysanthemum image "was undeniably there" [50]. Moreover, at the 2000 exposition where Wilson had two hours to view the Shroud in natural daylight, it was to him "quite apparent ...that flower images are not just an aberration of black-and-white photographs" but "[f]aint flower-like shapes are quite definitely there on the cloth itself"[51]. And Prof. Danin's confirmation and identification of flowers and plant parts on the Shroud is significant given that, as previously mentioned, he is a world authority on the flora of Israel [52]. And as a Jew, Danin cannot be accused of Christian bias[53]. Moreover, unlike the Whanger's non-plant claims, Danin has verified the presence of his botanical images across a range of different photographs of the Shroud[54] and even on the Shroud itself at the 1998[55] and 2000 exposition[56]. Each image must be evaluated on its own merits[57]. I accept that the chrysanthemum image is on the Shroud because I can see it in Internet photographs (see above). I therefore accept that there are other flower and plant images on the Shroud which I cannot yet see (although I can also see some others) which have been identified by Prof. Danin.
Conclusion That there are flower images on the Shroud has implications for how the image was formed, in that any theorised image formation process which cannot imprint flower images on linen must be rejected as inadequate. We will examine this further in "2.6. The other marks (5): Coins over the eyes." Also, that there are Palestinian and indeed Jerusalem flower images on the Shroud is another major problem for the forgery theory[§15]. How would a medieval or earlier forger imprint Palestinian and Jerusalem flower and plant images on the Shroud's linen and why would he?
NOTES
1. Whanger, M. & Whanger, A.D., 1998, "The Shroud of Turin: An Adventure of Discovery," Providence House Publishers: Franklin TN, p.71. [return]
2. Wilson, I., 1991, "Holy Faces, Secret Places: The Quest for Jesus' True Likeness," Doubleday: London, p.167. [return]
3. Danin, A., Whanger, A.D., Baruch, U. & Whanger, M., 1999, "Flora of the Shroud of Turin," Missouri Botanical Garden Press: St. Louis MO, p.10. [return]
4. Whanger & Whanger, 1998, p.28. [return]
5. Council for Study of the Shroud of Turin, 2001, "Chrysanthemum coronarium from Flora Palaestina; drawing courtesy Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities, corona image by Scheuermann," CSST Still Image Gallery, 4 October. [return]
6. Whanger & Whanger, 1998, p.71. [return]
7. Whanger & Whanger, 1998, p.72. [return]
8. Maloney, P.C., 1999, "A Contribution toward a History of Botanical Research on the Shroud of Turin," in Walsh, B., ed., Proceedings of the 1999 Shroud of Turin International Research Conference, Richmond, Virginia, p.251. [return]
9. Wilson, I. & Schwortz, B., 2000, "The Turin Shroud: The Illustrated Evidence," Michael O'Mara Books: London, p.86. [return]
10. "Garland chrysanthemum," Wikipedia, 6 September 2012. [return]
11. Guerrera, V., 2000, "The Shroud of Turin: A Case for Authenticity," TAN: Rockford IL, p.149. [return]
12. Whanger & Whanger, 1998, p.78. [return]
13. Ibid. [return]
14. Whanger & Whanger, 1998, p.79. [return]
15. Whanger & Whanger, 1998, p.78. [return]
16. Whanger & Whanger, 1998, p.79. [return]
17. Ibid. [return]
18. Whanger & Whanger, 1998, p.80. [return]
19. Danin, A., 1997, "Pressed Flowers: Where Did the Shroud of Turin Originate?: A Botanical Quest," ERETZ Magazine, November/December. [return]
20. Danin, et al., 1999, pp.18-19. [return]
21. Danin, et al., 1999, p.16. [return]
22. Wilson & Schwortz, 2000, p.91. [return]
23. Danin, et al., 1999, p.16. [return]
24. Ibid. [return]
25. Ibid. [return]
26. Maloney, 1999, p.251. [return]
27. Danin, 1997. [return]
28. Danin, 2010, p.17. [return]
29. Danin, A., 2010, "Botany of the Shroud: The Story of Floral Images on the Shroud of Turin," Danin Publishing: Jerusalem, Israel, p.54. [return]
30. Wilson & Schwortz, 2000, p.88. [return]
31. Danin, 2010, p.17. [return]
32. Danin, 2010, p.54. [return]
33. Wilson & Schwortz, 2000, p.92. [return]
34. Danin, 2010, p.52. [return]
35. Danin, et al., 1999, pp.21-22. [return]
36. Danin, et al., 1999, p.18. [return]
37. Ibid. [return]
38. Danin, et al., 1999, p.22. [return]
39. Wilson & Schwortz, 2000, p.91. [return]
40. Doig, K.F., 2006, "Doig's Biblical Chronology: Part IV, The Crucifixion of Jesus." [return]
41. Danin, et al., 1999, p.22. [return]
42. Ibid. [return]
43. Mark 15:33-34, in Cole, R.A., 1989, "The Gospel According to Mark: An Introduction and Commentary," The Tyndale New Testament commentaries, Inter-Varsity Press Leicester: UK, Second edition, p.320. [return]
44. Whanger & Whanger, 1998, p.78. [return]
45. Danin, A. & Baruch, U., 1998, "Floristic Indicators for the Origin of the Shroud of Turin," Third International Congress on the Shroud of Turin, 5-7 June 1998, Turin, Italy, in Minor, M., Adler, A.D. & Piczek, I., eds., 2002, "The Shroud of Turin: Unraveling the Mystery: Proceedings of the 1998 Dallas Symposium," Alexander Books: Alexander NC, p.209. [return]
46. Wilson & Schwortz, 2000, p.86. [return]
47. Whanger & Whanger, 1998, pp.81-82. [return]
48. Wilson & Schwortz, 2000, p.83. [return]
49. Wilson & Schwortz, 2000, p.84. [return]
50. Wilson & Schwortz, 2000, p.87. [return]
51.Wilson & Schwortz, 2000, p.92. [return]
52. Wilson & Schwortz, 2000, p.85. [return]
53. Wilson, I., 2010, "The Shroud: The 2000-Year-Old Mystery Solved," Bantam Press: London, p.292. [return]
54. Danin & Baruch, 1998, p.203. [return]
55. Danin, et al., 1999, p.16. [return]
56. Wilson & Schwortz, 2000, p.91. [return]
57. Maloney, 1999, p.253. [return]
§15. To be further examined under "9. Problems of the forgery theory". [return]
Continued in part 16, "2.6. The other marks (5): Coins over the eyes."
Posted 6 April 2013. Updated 24 May 2024.
Hi Steve,
ReplyDeleteThis is sort of off-topic, but there is something I was wondering and I thought you might have some insight about it:
As I understand it, Ray Rogers claimed that the Shroud image is in a sort of thin sugary coating on the surface of the Shroud, and didn't actually penetrate into the cell walls of the fibers at all. OTOH, other reports seem to say that the image is in the fibers themselves (all are agreed that the image only measures 200-600nm deep). Do you have any idea which is the case, and why the apparent discrepancy?
The Deuce
ReplyDelete[...]
>As I understand it, Ray Rogers claimed that the Shroud image is in a sort of thin sugary coating on the surface of the Shroud, and didn't actually penetrate into the cell walls of the fibers at all.
See my comment under my post, "Shroud on SBS 1 Australia at 7:30 pm tonight Sunday 24 March [2013]":
---------------------------------
5) The third and last naturalistic theory of the Shroud's image formation in the documentary was that of the late Ray Rogers, the Maillard reaction theory, which Schwortz favours. The theory claims that as Jesus' body decomposed, it gave off ammonia which reacted with sugars on the Shroud, which had coated it as part of the ancient flax-to-linen production process using the Soapwort plant (Saponaria officinalis).
Barrie Schwortz tested the theory using a dead pig lying under a linen sheet coated with Soapwort plant extract for the same time (~36 hours) the Gospels record that Jesus was in the tomb covered by his linen Shroud. But when the Shroud was removed from the pig's body there was only a faint brown coloring on the pig's `shroud' and Schwortz admitted that there was no image.
Schwortz then examined the pig's `shroud' Maillard reaction under his microscope and claimed it looked like the Shroud's colouring. But it didn't look like it to me.
Besides, as Schwortz himself admitted, the Bible claims (Psalm 16:10; Acts 2:27; 13:35) that Jesus' body did not decompose, and STURP's examination confirmed that the Man on the Shroud shows no sign of decomposition, whereas the pig had visibly started decomposing.
So despite: a) the pig's `shroud' having been coated with soapwort, whereas there is no evidence that at the time of Jesus entombment the Shroud still was so coated; and b) the visible degree of decomposition of the pig compared with NO visible decomposition of the Man on the Shroud, the degree of colouring and detail of the Shroud's was far greater than that of the pig.
Besides, if the Shroud's image was caused by a Maillard reaction on a body's linen shroud as the body within it decomposed, then there should be HUNDREDS of Shroudlike body images on the THOUSANDS of linen burial shrouds which have survived from Egyptian burials but there are NONE.
Therefore, I regard Ray Rogers' Maillard reaction naturalistic theory of the Shroud image's formation as having been falsified by Barrie Schwortz' experimental test of it in the documentary.
---------------------------------
It also doesn't explain the flower and coin images on the Shroud. So those who want there to be a naturalistic explanation of the Shroud image (and this includes some Christians), are forced by their philosophical preference (or prejudice) to deny that the flower and coin images are there.
[continued]
[continued]
ReplyDeleteBut I am preparing a post, "The Shroud of Turin: 2.6. The other marks (5): Coins over eyes" in which I show part of an Enrie 1931 photograph which I scanned from Vignon's "Le Saint Suaire de Turin: Devant La Science, L'archéologie, L'histoire, L'iconographie, La Logique" (1939), and enlarged 300%.
It CLEARLY shows an image of a Pontius Pilate lepton with its unique lituus (shepherd's crook) and the letter "A" (part of the inscription "TIBERIOU CAICAROC," i.e. "Tiberius Caesar" who was Roman Emperor at the time of Christ).
The images (there are two) are not `touched up' by me-I don't own any, nor know how to use, such software like Photoshop. All I did was scan an image from Vignon's book, rotate it, crop it. The second image I cut and enlarged from the first image. All I used was MP Navigator scanning software, Microsoft Office Picture Manager and Microsoft Paint.
And as will be seen, the image of a Pontius Pilate (Governor of Judea AD 26-39) lepton coin REALLY IS on the right eye of the Shroud man.
So either: 1) the Shroud is the very burial sheet of Christ (with His resurrected image supernaturally imprinted upon it), or; 2) the Shroud and its image were created by a 14th century or earlier UNKNOWN forger who went to all the time and effort to imprint by some UNKNOWN process, an image of a Pontius Pilate lepton coin over the right eye of the Jesus-image he forged.
Moreover, the forger WASTED HIS TIME, because the lepton image only became clearly visible on a black and white, contrast enhanced, negative photo of the Shroud, taken by Giuseppe Enrie in 1931, at least 600 years in the forger's future!
>OTOH, other reports seem to say that the image is in the fibers themselves (all are agreed that the image only measures 200-600nm deep).
The image is ON (not "in") the surface of some of the Shroud's flax FIBRILS, many of which make one linen FIBRE. The image is only one cell wall deep on those flax fibrils it is upon.
However, the image may also be on the other side of some of those affected fibrils, which are tubular, with a space (lumen) inside each fibril between its tubular cell wall. The ENEA Report (see my "Italian study claims Turin Shroud is Christ's authentic burial robe") explained how that could be so, i.e. high-energy/high frequency UV radiation is absorbed by (and so colours) a flax fibril's wall, but not by the lumen.
>Do you have any idea which is the case, and why the apparent discrepancy?
See above. Although Ray Rogers was apparently a Christian, he was anti-supernatural in his science. For example, Rogers was a leader in "New Mexicans for Science and Reason," which aimed to prevent ANY form of Creation by God being taught in New Mexican (and USA) schools, so that only fully naturalistic (aka. ATHEISTIC) evolution could be taught.
Stephen E. Jones
-----------------------------------
Comments are moderated. Those I consider off-topic, offensive or sub-standard will not appear. I reserve the right to respond to any comment as a separate blog post.
So despite: a) the pig's `shroud' having been coated with soapwort, whereas there is no evidence that at the time of Jesus entombment the Shroud still was so coated; and b) the visible degree of decomposition of the pig compared with NO visible decomposition of the Man on the Shroud, the degree of colouring and detail of the Shroud's was far greater than that of the pig.
ReplyDeleteBesides, if the Shroud's image was caused by a Maillard reaction on a body's linen shroud as the body within it decomposed, then there should be HUNDREDS of Shroudlike body images on the THOUSANDS of linen burial shrouds which have survived from Egyptian burials but there are NONE.
Not to mention, even if we imagine that a Maillard reaction would or even could somehow create an image of a decomposing body, that still wouldn't account for the hair being in the image.
The Deuce
ReplyDelete[...]
>Not to mention, even if we imagine that a Maillard reaction would or even could somehow create an image of a decomposing body, that still wouldn't account for the hair being in the image.
Good point. It doesn't.
There would only be a brown smudge on the Shroud, that would be more intense where it was nearest to the body, as there was with that partially decomposed pig.
Also, the SIDES of the body would then be in the image if it was a Maillard reaction, where gases from Jesus' (hypothetically) decomposing body, chemically reacted with a layer of polysaccharides (hypothetically) coating each flax fibril, but they ARE NOT.
That the image is only on the top and bottom surfaces of the Shroud but not the sides is explained by Jackson's supernatural "Cloth Collapse" theory, but not by ANY chemical, vapour or contact theory.
But to a Philosophical Naturalist (`nature is all there is, there is no supernatural') including its Christian Theistic Naturalist subset a naturalistic explanation that does not fit the facts is preferable to a supernatural explanation that does!
Stephen E. Jones
Stephen,I am intrigued by the pollen evidence.Is this coming up in your next post? I have found the list of pollen found by Max Frei. But I believe that the STURP samples were also found to have pollen samples.Is there a separate list of these.? You would be the one to know! Thanks.
ReplyDeleteJayjay
ReplyDelete>Stephen,I am intrigued by the pollen evidence.Is this coming up in your next post?
No. As I wrote in my post above,
"Some of the plant images on the Shroud confirm's identification of certain Palestinian and Middle Eastern species of pollen on the Shroud, which we will discuss in "6. Science and the Shroud")."
At my current rate of progress, that will probably be at least a year away.
>I have found the list of pollen found by Max Frei.
I assume you mean Frei's "Nine Years of Palinological Studies on the Shroud," in Shroud Spectrum International, Issue 3, June 1982, pp. 3-7?
>But I believe that the STURP samples were also found to have pollen samples.
I am not aware of any STURP pollen samples. Unlike Frei's ordinary Scotch tape pressed hard into the Shroud, STURP's uniform, minimum pressure, high grade tape system was a failure:
-------------------------------
Pollen on the Shroud positively places the cloth in Jerusalem and a region that includes Edessa and Constantinople.
Frei was severely criticized in some quarters for his sticky tape methods. Others on the STURP team had used a specialized tool to apply a minimum, exact, and uniform pressure with a high grade Mylar tape. As historian Ian Wilson tells it, "Frei, Columbo-style, took out of his pocket the sort of Scotch tape dispenser that can be purchased in any supermarket and proceeded to press pieces from this into the Shroud with what seemed quite inordinate vigor." As it turned out, Frei was right. The STURP sticky tape picked up only one pollen sample and the special Mylar tape proved less than satisfactory for microscopic work. Frei's tape picked up hundreds of deep-seated pollen spores along with other particles that have been examined extensively by many researchers.
-------------------------------
>Is there a separate list of these.? You would be the one to know! Thanks.
See above. There is a LOT I don't know about the Shroud. That is a major reason I am doing this series-to teach myself more about the Shroud.
If you find a list of STURP's pollen could you add a further comment below with a link to it if there is one? Thanks.
Stephen E. Jones
Thanks, Steven. I will look out for a list. I read somewhere that pollen with a Middle East origin had been found on the STURP tapes, not as many as by Frei but still significant,
ReplyDeleteJayjay
ReplyDelete>Thanks, Steven. I will look out for a list. I read somewhere that pollen with a Middle East origin had been found on the STURP tapes, not as many as by Frei but still significant,
OK. If I don't hear from you I will research it when I get to the pollen part of my "6. Science and the Shroud" section in this series.
But you might be thinking of the Shroud pollen collection held by Dr Paul Maloney in the USA and, because of his ill health, subsequently passed on to Dr Alan and Mary Whanger?
Maloney "found hundreds of pollen grains on the adhesive tapes" and on one tape alone "forty-five shreds of plant parts were found, including a whole anther full of pollen".
If so, that is part of Max Frei's collection, which Frei's widow gave to Maloney's group ASSIST (Association of Scientists and Scholars International for the Shroud of Turin):
---------------------------------
"Pressed Flowers: Where Did the Shroud of Turin Originate? A Botanical Quest," by Avinoam Danin, ERETZ Magazine, November/December 1997 [...]
Dr. Frei collected hundreds of pollen grains from the shroud, but he died in 1982 before he could finish examining and publishing all of his findings. Part of his collection was studied by the American Paul Maloney, who found hundreds of pollen grains on the adhesive tapes. On tape No. 4bd, for example, no less than forty-five shreds of plant parts were found, including a whole anther full of pollen. Maloney is not a botanist, but he managed to record tens of pollen grains on microscopic photographs. Today his collection is kept in a vault in the care of the Whangers, and his findings are being documented using the latest microscopic methods. [...]
---------------------------------
Stephen E. Jones
Stephen, what are your thoughts about the image formation process for the flowers? Dr. Jackson's theory for image of the man is that the body became mechanically transparent to the cloth, with gravity pulling the cloth down through the space and allowing it to be irradiated. If the flower images were formed by the same mechanism, it seems that the flowers themselves would also have undergone a transformation.
ReplyDeleteRegarding the coin images, perhaps the coins interrupted the body's radiative "field" enough to allow their images to be faintly imprinted. The coins, like the cloth, would have fallen, perhaps "sweeping" or otherwise interfering with the imprinting process on the cloth.
cwgf
ReplyDelete>Stephen, what are your thoughts about the image formation process for the flowers?
I assume they were some sort of electrical charge, similar, if not the same, as Dr Oswald Scheuermann's corona discharge images of flowers he was able to imprint on linen (see above).
>Dr. Jackson's theory for image of the man is that the body became mechanically transparent to the cloth, with gravity pulling the cloth down through the space and allowing it to be irradiated.
Agreed, as commented under my post of Jackson's "cloth collapse" theory.
>If the flower images were formed by the same mechanism, it seems that the flowers themselves would also have undergone a transformation.
There is no reason to think the flower images were formed by the same (presumably UV/Xray) radiation which imprinted Jesus' body image on the Shroud.
Presumably electromagnetic radiation was also generated by Jesus' body changing state (1Cor 15:50-52; Php 3:21).
>Regarding the coin images, perhaps the coins interrupted the body's radiative "field" enough to allow their images to be faintly imprinted.
I assume the coin images were formed by the same electrostatic process which formed the flower images. Scheuermann was also able to imprint coin images on linen using corona discharges. See my post, "2.6. The other marks (5): Coins over eyes".
>The coins, like the cloth, would have fallen, perhaps "sweeping" or otherwise interfering with the imprinting process on the cloth.
The coins over Jesus' eyes, like the flowers, would have been against Jesus' body with the Shroud covering them.
Assuming the vacuum created when Jesus' body became mechanically transparent (as we discussed in our comments under Jackson's "cloth collapse" theory), they would have been pressed tightly by the collapsing Shroud under an atmospheric pressure of about 14 pounds per square inch against the Shroud's inside upper and lower surfaces.
That would presumably have crushed the flowers, distorting them, but since they are not distorted, the electrical field (unlike the radiation field which imprinted the body image) was presumably a single pulse, which imprinted the flower image as they were at the instant after Jesus' resurrection, onto the Shroud's linen.
Stephen E. Jones
Thank you for your insights, Stephen. The shroud is utterly fantastic. It is His gift to us, especially in this age of scientific materialism. Since science cannot, without acknowledging the possibility of Jesus' resurrection, adequately explain the cause of the imprint, it must default to the conclusion that nature and mighty science itself are not the final word. The Author of creation is supreme over natural law! God's sense of irony is sublime.
ReplyDeleteI caught the coronal discharge explanation for the flowers and coins after my original post. It makes sense, and Scheuermann's images of the coin on linen and of the flowers strongly supports the theory. Utterly fantastic.
cwgf
ReplyDelete>Thank you for your insights, Stephen.
Thanks, but little of what I write about the Shroud are my own insights. I am just a populariser of the insights of others.
>The shroud is utterly fantastic. It is His gift to us, especially in this age of scientific materialism.
Agreed. It also functions as an instrument of God's judgment on scientific materialists, rendering unavailable to them Bertrand Russell's feeble excuse of, "Not enough evidence, God":
"Bertrand Russell was asked what he would say if he died and found himself confronted by God, demanding to know why Russell had not believed in him. `Not enough evidence, God, not enough evidence,' was Russell's (I almost said immortal) reply." (Dawkins, R., "The God Delusion," 2006, p.104).
The Shroud is MORE THAN ENOUGH evidence that Christianity is true!
>Since science cannot, without acknowledging the possibility of Jesus' resurrection, adequately explain the cause of the imprint, it must default to the conclusion that nature and mighty science itself are not the final word.
Science CANNOT BE, "the final word." A basic principle of science is that any scientific finding, theory, or even law, must always be capable of being proven false.
>The Author of creation is supreme over natural law! God's sense of irony is sublime.
Indeed!
>I caught the coronal discharge explanation for the flowers and coins after my original post. It makes sense, and Scheuermann's images of the coin on linen and of the flowers strongly supports the theory. Utterly fantastic.
Agreed.
The following is the first time I have requested this. But I will start including it once on each comments page under my posts. It was prompted by your words of appreciation.
==================================
PS: To all my readers. If you like my The Shroud of Turin blog, and you have a website, could you please consider adding a hyperlink to my blog on it? cwgf
>Thank you for your insights, Stephen.
Thanks, but very little of what I write about the Shroud are my own insights. I am just a populariser of the discoveries and insights of others.
>The shroud is utterly fantastic. It is His gift to us, especially in this age of scientific materialism.
Agreed. The Shroud also functions as an instrument of God's judgment on scientific materialists. It renders unavailable to them Bertrand Russell's feeble excuse of, "Not enough evidence, God":
"Bertrand Russell was asked what he would say if he died and found himself confronted by God, demanding to know why Russell had not believed in him. `Not enough evidence, God, not enough evidence,' was Russell's (I almost said immortal) reply." (Dawkins, R., "The God Delusion," 2006, p.104).
The Shroud is MORE THAN ENOUGH evidence that Christianity is true, "So they are [even more] without excuse." (Rom 1:20).
>Since science cannot, without acknowledging the possibility of Jesus' resurrection, adequately explain the cause of the imprint, it must default to the conclusion that nature and mighty science itself are not the final word.
Science CANNOT EVER BE, "the final word." A fundamental principle of science is that any scientific theory, or even law, is always capable of being falsified.
>The Author of creation is supreme over natural law! God's sense of irony is sublime.
Indeed!
>I caught the coronal discharge explanation for the flowers and coins after my original post. It makes sense, and Scheuermann's images of the coin on linen and of the flowers strongly supports the theory. Utterly fantastic.
Agreed.
[continued]
[continued]
ReplyDeleteThe following is the first time I have requested this. But I will start including it once in the comments under each one of my posts. It was prompted by your words of appreciation.
==================================
PS: To all my readers. If you like my The Shroud of Turin blog, and you have a website, could you please consider adding a hyperlink to my blog on it? This would help increase my blog's Google PageRank order and enable more people Googling on "the Shroud of Turin" to discover my blog. Thanks.
==================================
Stephen E. Jones