Freethought & Rationalism Archive

leonarde · 04-02-2005, 12:28 PM

Quote:

You assume the shroud to be genuine

Assume? No, I concluded it to be genuine after studying the proposition in one form or another since 1978. Must I go to my grave pretending I don't know, just to prove how 'open minded' I am????

Quote:

[...] when you
- don't know where it was from the time of Jesus' death until 1355 CE
- have no idea how to verify that the image is of Jesus and not some other person
- ignore all the evidence, including that of the Catholic Church itself, that says it is not genuine

Last things first:

1) I haven't 'ignored' any evidence. I've taken it all into consideration.

2) There's the necessity to go with likelihoods in trying to reconstruct its whereabouts/route from Jerusalem to France. But even if the hypothesis of the whereabouts (for a given century/centuries) is wrong that doesn't NECESSARILY mean that the Shroud is in any way fraudulent. Archaeology doesn't work that way......the date in the 1350s all but precludes (except for 'conspiracy enthusiasts') that MODERN forgers could have done it. And the further back you go, the less technologically a posited forger would have to work with.

3) on the Jesus identity, the confluence of the exact types of wounds (and absence of a broken leg or legs) would be unique: crown of thorns (to mock 'kingship of Jews'), lance wound in side etc.....and that confluence fuels the very speculations about forgery.....and angry denials that it could be He....

Amaleq13 · 04-02-2005, 03:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by leonarde

Assume? No, I concluded it to be genuine after studying the proposition in one form or another since 1978.

You've concluded it is genuine despite having no idea exactly how the image was formed nor any evidence of its existence prior to the middle of the 14th century nor any description of the alleged victim against which to compare the image? Seems like a leap of faith to me.

Quote:

2) There's the necessity to go with likelihoods in trying to reconstruct its whereabouts/route from Jerusalem to France. But even if the hypothesis of the whereabouts (for a given century/centuries) is wrong that doesn't NECESSARILY mean that the Shroud is in any way fraudulent. Archaeology doesn't work that way......

Archaeology isn't concerned about establishing an alleged artifact's provenance? I don't think that it true.

Quote:

3) on the Jesus identity, the confluence of the exact types of wounds (and absence of a broken leg or legs) would be unique: crown of thorns (to mock 'kingship of Jews'), lance wound in side etc.....and that confluence fuels the very speculations about forgery...

Rightly so given that there is no good reason to assume the Gospel details can be relied upon as accurate history and ample reason to assume the Passion details are derived from Hebrew Scripture.

Sparrow · 04-02-2005, 05:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by leonarde

I know but that's a PREJUDICE in doing a Shroud-related experiment. A prejudice that, if possible, he should compensate for (and that OTHER PEOPLE will have to take into account in evaluating his experiment(s)).

And do you know he hasn't compensated for it or do you just wish it were so? Wilson is a Christian and believes in the Resurrection. It would seem that he would be very pleased to report the shroud to be genuine were it so.

Quote:

Originally Posted by leonarde

Furthermore he's just WRONG about the significance of the Pope's statement. If Pope Pius (or any pope, or any PERSON FOR THAT MATTER) truly believes that relic X is genuine, in what sense is it "lying" to say so???? Answer: it isn't!

It's at least misleading not to admit that at least one Pope thought it was not genuine.

Quote:

Originally Posted by leonarde

No! That is precisely what he has NOT done and what I have been kvetching about for the last 2 or 3 posts!!! Let him use glass and dyes available at that time (14th to 16th Centuries ) and then we'll talk! Until then it is all opinion and (retrograde) extrapolation based on using 20th Century materials.

Grasping at is more like it. Your whole argument hinges on there being some incredible difference in glass and paint over tha last 700 years. Differences that have already been shown to be minimal.

Quote:

Originally Posted by leonarde

What are you TALKING ABOUT?!? The Shroud of Turin is the most studied artifact in human history!

You really should get out more. You reference about 40 studies (without eliminating the duplicates, if any) from your multiple links. You really think that is evidence the shroud is the most studied artifact in human history? More than say the Rosetta Stone or King Tut's tomb?

leonarde · 04-02-2005, 07:46 PM

Quote:

You really think that is evidence the shroud is the most studied artifact in human history?

Yes, and easily so: that was the case over twenty years ago and dozens to hundreds of studies have come out since....(added via edit) one reason you don't realize how much is there (in the first link) is that MANY of the papers given at Schwortz's site list in their bibliographies many OTHER works, some on the general topics of Jewish burials and crucifixion etc., others on specific topics/examinations of the Turin Shroud. So, for instance, the archaeologist Meacham's paper alone lists:

Quote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

References Cited

Althusser, Louis. 1971. Lenin and philosophy. New York: Monthly Review Press. [RJD]
Angier, Natalie. 1982. Unraveling the Shroud of Turin. Discover, October, pp. 54-60. [JRC, MM]
Barbet, Pierre. 1963. A Doctor at Calvary. New York: Image.
Bender, A. P. 1895. Beliefs, rites, and customs of the Jews connected with death, burial, and mourning. Jewish Quarterly Review 7:101-3.
Binford, Lewis. 1962. Archeology as anthropology. American Antiquity 28: 217-25. [RJD]
Bollone, Pierluigi Baima, Maria Jorio, and Anna Lucia Massaro. 1981. La dimostrazione della presenza di tracce di sangue umano sulla Sindone. Sindon 30:5-8.
Bornkamm, g. 1974. "Jesus Christ," Encyclopedia Britannica Macropaedia, vol. 10, pp. 145-55. [JRC]
Bortin, Virginia. 1980. Science and the Shroud of Turin. Biblical Archaeologist, Spring, pp. 109-17.
Brandone, Alberto, and P. A. Borroni. 1978. "L'analisi per attivazione neutronica nello studio della Sindone di Torino," in La Sindone e la scienza. Edited by Piero Coero Borga, pp. 205-15. Turin: Paoline.
Breckenridge, J. 1959. The numismatic iconography of Justinian II. Numismatic Notes and Monographs 144-45:1-104. [ADW]
Bucklin, Robert. 1961. The medical aspects of the crucifixion of Christ. Sindon, December, pp. 5-11.
Bucklin, Robert. 1970. The legal and medical aspects of the trial and death of Christ. Medicine, Science, and the Law 10:14-26.
Bucklin, Robert. 1981. "Afterword," in Verdict on the Shroud, by Kenneth E. Stevenson and Gary R. Habermas, pp. 189-90. Ann Arbor: Servant.
Bulst, Werner. 1957. The Shroud of Turin. Milwaukee: Bruce.
Cameron, Averil. 1980. The sceptic and the Shroud. Inaugural lecture in the Department of Classics and History, King's College, London, April 29.
Cameron, Malcom. 1978. "A pathologist looks at the Shroud," in Face to Face with the Turin Shroud. Edited by Peter Jennings, pp. 57-59. Oxford: Mowbray.
Caselli, Giuseppe. 1950. "Le constatazioni della medicina moderna sulle impronte della S. Sindone," in La S. Sindone nelle ricerche moderne. Turin: Lice.
Chevalier, Ulisse. 1900. Etude critique sur l'origine du Saint Suaire de Lirey-Chambèry-Turin. Paris: Picard.
Codegone, Cesare. 1976. "Sulla datazione di antichi tessuti mediante isotopi radioattivi," in La S. Sindone. Turin: Diocesi Torinese.
Culliton, Barbara J. 1978. The mystery of the Shroud challenges 20th-century science. Science 201:235-39.
Curto, Silvio. 1976. "La Sindone di Torino: Osservazioni archeologiche circa il tessuto e l'immagine," in La S. Sindone. Turin: Diocesi Torinese.
De Clary, Robert. 1936. The conquest of Constantinople. Translated by E. H. McNeal. New York: Columbia University Press.
Delage, Yves. 1902. Le Linceul de Turin. Revue Scientifique 22:683-87.
Dinegar, Robert H. 1982. The 1978 scientific study of the Shroud of Turin. Shroud Spectrum International 1(4):3-12.
Donovan, Vincent J. 1980. The Shroud and the laws of probability. The Catholic Digest, April, pp. 49-52.
Filas, Francis. 1980. The dating of the Shroud of Turin from coins of Pontius Pilate. Privately printed.
Filas, Francis. 1982. The dating of the Shroud of Turin from coins of Pontius Pilate. Youngtown, Ariz.: Cogan Productions. [ADW]
Filogamo, Guido, and Alberto Zina. 1976. "Esami microscopici sulla tela sindonica," in La S. Sindone. Turin: Diocesi Torinese.
Fleming, Stuart J. 1978. "The Shroud: Further scientific investigation," in Face to Face with the Turin Shroud. Edited by Peter Jennings, pp. 61-68. Oxford: Mowbray.
Frache, Giorgio, Eugenia Mari Rizzatti, and Emilio Mari. 1976. "Relazione conclusive sulle indagini d'origine ematologico praticate su materiale prelevato dalla Sindone," in La S. Sindone. Turin: Diocesi Torinese.
Francez, J. 1935. Un pseudo linceul du Christ. Paris.
Frei, Max. 1978. "Il passato della Sindone alla luce della palinologia," in La Sindone e la scienza. Edited by Piero Coero Borga, pp. 191-200. Turin: Paoline.
Frei, Max. 1982. Nine years of palynological studies on the Shroud. Shroud Spectrum International 1(3):3-7.
Gabrielli, Noemi. 1976. "La sindone nella storia dell'arte," in La S. Sindone. Turin: Diocesi Torinese.
Gibbon, Edward. 1776-78. The decline and fall of the Roman Empire. London.
Gilbert, Roger, and Marion M. Gilbert. 1980. Ultra-violet visible reflectance and fluorescence spectra of the Shroud of Turin. Applied Optics 19:1930-36.
Green, Marius. 1969. Enshrouded in silence. Ampleforth Journal 74:319-45.
Haas, Nicu. 1970. Anthropological observations on the skeletal remains from Giv'at ha-Mivtar. Israel Exploration Journal 20:38-59.
Hachlili, Rachel. 1979. Ancient burial customs preserved in Jericho Hills. Biblical Archaeology Review, July/August, pp. 28-35.
Hamilton, E. I. 1965. Applied geochronology. London, New York: Academic Press.
Handsman, Russell. 1980. Studying myth and history: Perspectives for the past from the Continent. Reviews in Anthropology 7:255-68. [RJD]
Heller, J. H., and A. D. Adler. 1980. Blood on the Shroud of Turin. Applied Optics 19:2742-44.
Heller, J. H., and A. D. Adler. 1981. A chemical investigation of the Shroud of Turin. Journal of the Canadian Society of Forensic Science 14(3):81-103.
Hengel, Martin. 1977. Crucifixion. London: SCM.
Hynek, R. W. 1936. Science and the Holy Shroud. Chicago: Benedictine.
Jackson, John P., Eric J. Jumper, Bill Mottern, and Kenneth E. Stevenson. 1977. "The three-dimensional image of Jesus' burial cloth." Proceedings of the 1977 U.S. Conference of Research on the Shroud of Turin. Edit by Kenneth Stevenson, pp. 74-94. Bronx: Holy Shroud Guild.
Judica-Cordiglia, G. 1961. La Sindone. Padua: Lice.
Jumper, E. J., A. D. Adler, J. P. Jackson, S. F. Pellicori, J. H. Heller, and J. R. Druzik. n.d. A comprehensive examination of the various stains and images on the Shroud of Turin. Advances in Archeological Chemistry. In press.
Jumper, Eric J., and Robert W. Mottern. 1980. A scientific investigation of the Shroud of Turin. Applied Optics 19:1909-12.
Kanael, Baruch. 1963. Ancient Jewish coins and their historical importance. Biblical Archaeologist 26(2):38-62.
Kraus, S. 1910-11. Talmudische Archäologie. Leizpig.
La Cava, Francesco. 1953. La passione e la morte di N. S. Gesù Cristo illustrata dalla scienza medica. Naples: D'Auria.
Lavoie, Bonnie B., Gilbert R. Lavoie, Daniel Klutstein, and John Regan. 1981. The body of Jesus was not washed according to the Jewish burial custom. Sindon 30:19-30.
Leone, Mark. 1982. Some opinions about recovering mind. American Antiquity 47:742-60. [RJD]
McCrone, Walter C. 1980. Light microscopical study of the Turin "Shroud" 2. The Microscope 28:115-28.
McCrone, Walter C. 1981. Microscopical study of the Turin "Shroud" 3. The Microscope 29(1):19-39. [SDS]
McCrone, Walter C. 1982. Shroud image is the work of an artist. The Skeptical Inquirer 6(3):35-36. [JEA, JRC, PCM]
McNair, Philip. 1978. "The Shroud and history: Fantasy, fake, or fact?" in Face to face with the Turin Shroud. Edited by Peter Jennings, pp. 21-40. Oxford: Mowbray.
Madden, F. 1967 (1864). History of Jewish coinage and of money in the Old and New Testament. San Diego: Pegasus. [ADW]
Mandelbaum, Maurice. 1938. The problem of historical knowledge. New York.
Moedder, Hermann. 1949. Die Todesurache dei der Kreuzigung. Stimmen der Zeit 144:50-59.
Morris, R. A., L. A. Schwalbe, and J. R. London. 1980. X-ray fluorescence investigation of the Shroud of Turin. X-ray Spectrometry 9(2): 40-47.
Mueller, Marvin M. 1982. The Shroud of Turin: A critical appraisal. The Skeptical Inquirer 6(3): 15-34.
Murphy, Cullen. 1981. Shreds of evidence. Harper's, November, pp. 42-65.
Nickell, Joe. 1978. The Shroud of Turin - Solved! The Humanist 38(6): 30-32.
Nickell, Joe. 1979. The Turin Shroud: Fake? Fact? Photograph? Popular Photography 85(5):97-99, 146-47.
Nickell, Joe. 1981. New evidence: The Shroud of Turin is a forgery. Free inquiry 1(3):28-30. [JRC]
Nickell, Joe. 1983. Inquest on the Shroud of Turin. Buffalo: Prometheus Press. [MM, JN, SDS]
O'Rahilly, Alfred. 1941. The burial of Christ. Irish Ecclesiastical Record 59.
Papini, Carlo. 1982. Sindone: Un mistero che si svela. Turin: Claudiana.
Peacock, B. A. V. 1979. "The later prehistory of the Malay peninsula," in Early South East Asia. Edited by R. B. Smith and W. Watson. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Pellicori, S. F. 1980. Spectral properties of the Shroud of Turin. Applied Optics 19:1913-20.
Pellicori, Samuel, and Mark S. Evans. 1981. The Shroud of Turin through the microscope. Archaeology 34:34-43.
Raes, G. 1976. "Rapprt d'analyse du tissu," in La S. Sindone, pp. 79-84. Turin: Diocesi Torinese.
Rehin, R. W., Jr. 1980. The Shroud of Turin. Medica World News, December 22, pp. 40-50. [JRC, SDS]
Ricci, Giulio. 1977. "Historical, medical, and physical study of the Holy Shroud." Proceedings of the U.S. Conference of Research on the Shroud of Turin. Edited by Kenneth Stevenson, pp. 58-73. Bronx: Holy Shroud Guild.
Riggi, Giovanni. 1981. Electronic scanning microscopy and microanalysis of dust taken from burial fabrics of Egyptian mummies, in relation to dust taken from the Shroud of Turin. Paper read at the STURP conference, New London, Conn., October 9.
Rinaldi, Peter M. 1972. It is the Lord. New York: Vantage.
Rinaldi, Peter M. 1979. When millions saw the Shroud. New York: Don Bosco.
Robinson, John A. T. 1978. "The Shroud and the New Testament," in Face to Face with the Turin Shroud. Edited by Peter Jennings pp. 69-80. Oxford: Mowbray.
Rodante, Sebastiano. 1982. The coronation of thorn in the light of the Shroud. Shroud Spectrum International 1(1): 5-24.
Rogers, R. N. 1977. "Chemical considerations concerning the Shroud of Turin." Proceedings of the U.S. Conference of Research on the Shroud of Turin. Edited by Kenneth Stevenson, pp. 131-35. Bronx: Holy Shroud Guild.
Sabloff, Jeremy A. 1981. When the rhetoric fades: A brief appraisal of intellectual trends in American archaeology during the past two decades. Bullettin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 242:1-5. [PCM]
Sava, Anthony F. 1957. The wounds of Christ. Catholic Biblical Quarterly 16:438-43.
Schafersman, Steven D. 1982a. Science, the public, and the Shroud of Turin. The Skeptical Inquirer 6(3):37-56.
Schafersman, Steven D. 1982b. Are the STURP scientists pseudoscientists? The Microscope 30(3):232-34.
Schafersman, Steven D. 1982c. Letter. The Microscope 30(4):344-52.
Schwalbe, L. A., and R. N. Rogers. 1982. Physics and chemistry of the Shroud of Turin. Analytica Chimica Acta 135:3-49.
Segal, J. B. 1970. Edessa the Blessed City. Oxford.
Sox, H. David. 1978. "Bringing the Shroud to the test," in Face to face with the Turin Shroud. Edited by Peter Jennings, pp. 41-56. Oxford: Mowbray.
Sox, H. David. 1981. The image on the Shroud: Is the Turin Shroud a forgery? London: Unwin.
Stacpoole, Alberic J. 1978. "The Shroud of Jesus: Icon and relic," in Face to face with the Turin Shroud. Edited by Peter Jennings, pp. 81-85. Oxford: Mowbray.
Stevenson, Kenneth E., and Gary R. Habermas. 1981. Verdict on the Shroud. Ann Arbor: Servant.
Stuckenrath, Robert, Jr. 1965. On the care and feeding of radiocarbon dates. Archaeology 18:277-81.
Tamburelli, G. 1979. La Sindone dopo l'elaborazione tridimensionale. L'Osservatore Romano, November 7. [GT]
Tamburelli, G. 1981. The results in the processing of the Holy Shroud of Turin. IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence 3(6):670-76.
Tamburelli, G. 1982. Reading the Shroud, called the fifth Gospel, with the aid of the computer. Shroud Spectrum International 1(2):3-11.
Thurston, Herbert. 1903. The Holy Shroud and the verdict of history. The Month 101:17-29.
Turin Commission. 1976. La S. Sindone: Ricerche e studi della commissione di esperti nominata dall'arcivescovo di Torino, card. Michele Pellegrino. Rivista Diocesana Torinese, Supplement.
Tzaferis, Vasilius. 1970. Jewish tombs at and near Giv'at ha-Mivtar. Israel Exploration Journal 20:18-32.
Vignon, Paul. 1937. The problem of the Holy Shroud. Scientific American 156:162-64.
Vignon, Paul. 1939. Le Saint Suaire devant la science, l'archéologie, l'histoire, l'iconographie, la logique. Paris.
Volckringer, J. 1942. Le problème des empreints devant la science. Paris: Carmel.
Walsh, John. 1963. The Shroud. New York: Random House.
Weaver, Kenneth F. 1980. The mystery of the Shroud. National Geographic 157:730-53.
Weitzmann, K. 1976. The Monastery of Saint Catherine at Mount Sinai: The icons. Vol. 1 Princeton University Press. [ADW]
Whanger, Alan D., and Mary Whanger. n.d. Points of congruence between features of the facial and head areas of the Shroud of Turin and early portrayals of Jesus Christ. MS.
Wilcox, Robert K. 1977. Shroud. New York: Bantam.
Wilson, Edmund. 1955. The scrolls from the Dead Sea. London: Allen.
Wilson, Ian. 1978. The Turin Shroud. Middlesex: Penguin.
Wilson, Ian. 1979. The Shroud of Turin. New York: Image Books. [ADW]
Wilson, Ian. 1981. New findings on the Turin Shroud. MS.
Wuenschel, Edward A. 1945. The Shroud of Turin and the burial of Christ. Catholic Biblical Quarterly 7:405-37. [AJO]
Wuenschel, Edward A. 1945. John's account of the burial. Catholic Biblical Quarterly 8:135-78 [AJO]
Wuenschel, Edward A. 1953. The truth about the Holy Shroud. American Ecclesiastical Review 129:170-87.
Zugibe, F. T. 1981. The Cross and the Shroud. Cresskill, N.J.:McDonagh. [PCM]
Zugibe, F. T. 1982. The Cross and the Shroud. Garnerville, N.Y.: Angelus Books. [ADW]

Again, not ALL works are on the Shroud itself but the OTHER papers frequently have references, in texts and/or bibliographies, to prior studies, reference materials. (end of edit addition)

Quote:

More than say the Rosetta Stone or King Tut's tomb?

The physical essence of the Rosetta Stone is not that interesting: just a slab of basalt. It was the Egyptian text that was so compelling but texts can be and frequently are extracted from their physical manuscripts/points of inscription. The Rosetta Stone was found in 1799 and deciphered in 1822. So even the TEXT was a matter of the most intense study for only 23 or so years. The Shroud? It depends on when you start the clock but it would be in 1898 at the latest. And the Shroud has dozens of skeins of evidence.....
King Tut's tomb? Interesting, and for a long time but a far narrower field (ie Egyptologists mostly).......

leonarde · 04-02-2005, 08:06 PM

Quote:

2) There's the necessity to go with likelihoods in trying to reconstruct its whereabouts/route from Jerusalem to France. But even if the hypothesis of the whereabouts (for a given century/centuries) is wrong that doesn't NECESSARILY mean that the Shroud is in any way fraudulent. Archaeology doesn't work that way......

Archaeology isn't concerned about establishing an alleged artifact's provenance? I don't think that it true.

That is NOT what I said. I said when an artifact has been at site X since 1355 the trail may run cold before that time frame. That HARDLY means it only dates from 1355. If I thought that archaeology wasn't "concerned about establishing an alleged artifact's provenance", I would HARDLY have noted in my SECOND post, this thread that:

1) pollen found on the Shroud in the 1970s included many species found in the Near East.

2) those species of flowers are seen in enhanced photographic images of the Shroud, and this certifiably so: see the link I gave on page 1 for the Israeli botany experts' study. The site of most likely provenance? Jerusalem.

3) a type of limetone embedded in the Shroud is identical with a type of Jerusalem area limestone.........

All three points had to do (have to do) with the provenance of the Shroud.

leonarde · 04-02-2005, 08:13 PM

Posted by Sparrow:

Quote:

Originally Posted by leonarde
I know but that's a PREJUDICE in doing a Shroud-related experiment. A prejudice that, if possible, he should compensate for (and that OTHER PEOPLE will have to take into account in evaluating his experiment(s)).

And do you know he hasn't compensated for it or do you just wish it were so? Wilson is a Christian and believes in the Resurrection. It would seem that he would be very pleased to report the shroud to be genuine were it so.

If you really believe that then you need to read Wilson's own words on that subject AGAIN. He's clearly of the the-only-good-religious-relic-is-a-thoroughly-discredited-religious-relic persuasion.

Cheers!

Amaleq13 · 04-02-2005, 08:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by leonarde

All three points had to do (have to do) with the provenance of the Shroud.

Even if all three findings are assumed to be legitimate, they do nothing to establish that the object existed prior to the middle of the 14th century.

epepke · 04-02-2005, 11:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sparrow

In other words, if Jesus walked up to you right now on the street, how would you know it was him?

Easy.

Since a shroud in contact with the skin would, when the shroud is laid flat, the face would look like Arnold in Hey Arnold, an actual head that could produce such a gaunt image on the shroud would have to be about the shape of a cocktail wiener. I've never seen anyone with that skinny a head, even that guy from The Membranes, so I'd assume it would have to be Jesus.

Or something like that.

leonarde · 04-03-2005, 10:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by leonarde
All three points had to do (have to do) with the provenance of the Shroud.

Even if all three findings are assumed to be legitimate, they do nothing to establish that the object existed prior to the middle of the 14th century.

That's where you're wrong: we know a great deal about where the Lirey-Chambery-Turin Shroud has been since the 1350s: it has spent the ENTIRE TIME PERIOD in Western Europe (at those three locations, occasionally on 'tour' in Western Europe, and, during WWII secreted in some monastery or another to avoid destruction).

1) The prehistory of the Shroud (ie the part of its existence BEFORE the mid 14th Century) was its only time to be exposed to Near Eastern pollen.

2) The prehistory of the Shroud was its only time to have acquired images of species of plants indigenous to the Near East only (apparently flowers were interred with the deceased).

3) The prehistory of the Shroud was its only time to have picked up limestone from Jerusalem.

Once you realize the full implications of the pollen, floral images, and limestone remnants, you realize that the Shroud WAS in the Jerusalem area at some point during its existence. But in its prehistory.......ie before we have an established historical record of it.

Diogenes the Cynic · 04-03-2005, 10:07 AM

The "Jerusalem pollen" canard was debunked as a fraud long ago.

Quote:

Also, the claims of pollen supposedly found on the Shroud allegedly indicating that the Shroud was manufactured in the Middle East before the eighth century have been discredited as "fraud" and "junk science." The person who originally claimed to have found the pollen on the Shroud, Max Frei, has been accused of "sleight of hand" in reporting that pollen samples he took from living plants were subsequently found on the Shroud. The Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Paranormal Claims (CSICOP) basically determines that Max Frei's "find" is an out-and-out fraud:

"POLLENS: It was reported that pollens on the shroud proved it came from Palestine, but the source for the pollens was a freelance criminologist, Max Frei, who once pronounced the forged 'Hitler Diaries' genuine. Frei's tape-lifted samples from the Shroud were controversial from the outset since similar samples taken by the Shroud of Turin Research Project in 1978 had comparatively few pollens. As it turned out, after Frei's tapes were examined following his death in 1983, they also had very few pollens--except for a particular one that bore a suspicious cluster on the 'lead' (or end), rather than on the portion that had been applied to the shroud. (See Skeptical Inquirer magazine, Summer 1994 pp. 379-385.)"

Researcher Mark Thompson says of the pollen:

"One thing that is well known to botanists is that the range within which many wild plants grow contracts under pressure from agriculture, civilization, industry and climate changes, and can expand due to the inadvertent or deliberate transport of seeds in cargo along trade routes.

"These shroud researchers asserted (using a database that covered only Israel, it seems, along with other available reports of the plant's range, which I presume to be reliable for the sake of argument) that Z. dumosum grows only in Israel, Syria and the Sinai peninsula.

"What I was working on before the likely fraud by Max Frei was pointed out here, is that Z. dumosum may have grown throughout the Middle East along the Mediterranean coast clear up into Byzantium and Constantinople during the 8th century. Other species of Zygophyllaceae grow throughout that range, from Turkey and Greece even into India and clear around the Mediterranean into the Levant and Northern Africa (including the related notorious hallucinogenic Soma/Haoma candidate plant Peganum harmala).

"So, the statement that 'As Zygophyllum dumosum grows only in Israel, Jordan, and Sinai, its appearance helps to definitively limit the shroud’s place of origin' seemed worth questioning, especially due to climate changes and population pressures in the region over the last 1100 years. . . .

"Another source of suspicion was that the odd appearance of vague flower images on the shroud are 'explained' in one of these papers as due to 'corona discharge.' This was also quite far-fetched, since corona discharge is more related to Kirlian photography than the residue of pressed flowers. Unless one insists that the Shroud and any enfolded bouquets were struck by Divine Lightning or something - an entertaining notion worthy of Steven Spielberg I suppose, but hardly likely."

The conclusion here is that the pollen does not only grow in the "Holy Land" and that other arguments are metaphysical, not scientific.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.