In previous Shroud Reports we have published articles about extraordinary new evidence based on the pollen found on the Shroud and recently confirmed by two Israeli botanists attached to the Hebrew University in Jerusalem.

As one would expect, no good deed will go unpunished. The magazine called the Skeptical Inquirer challenged these findings and rehashed old arguments against authenticity as well in their Nov/Dec 1999 issue. We have reprinted an excellent letter written by long time Shroud researcher, Joseph Marino that was subsequently published in the Academy of Religion and Psychical Research Bulletin March 2000 issue. Marino takes issue Skeptical Inquirer article in a point/counter-point format.

INTRO:
An article in the Skeptical Inquirer (SI) (Nov/Dec 1999) claimed that "news of pollen and plant-image findings on the Shroud of Turin are based on earlier, scientifically discredited research." It refers to the announcement by researchers in August 1999 that botanical evidence found on the Shroud places its origins in Jerusalem before the eighth century, which provides confirmation of the work of the late Dr. Max Frei, a Swiss criminologist and botanist, who was founder and director for 25 years of the scientific department of the Zurich Criminal Police. The author relates supposed ironclad evidence that the Shroud is a forgery and maintains, as proposed in previous SI articles, that claims that the Shroud may be authentic are based on "shroud science," which is described as an approach that begins with the desired answer.

While SI may provide healthy doses of skepticism about various claims of the paranormal, one also has to be wary of an organization that makes a living by being professional skeptics, at least where the Shroud of Turin is concerned. The SI article provides only part of the story. Because of limited space, I will excerpt major statements and provide additional data in a comment.

SI:
"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 pollen."

Marino:
Frei's method of sample removal enabled him to pick up the pollen from the valleys between the crowns of the threads whereas STURP's method only obtained material from the crowns (Association of Scientists and Scholars International for the Shroud of Turin, Ltd. (ASSIST) Newsletter, June 1990, pg. 4).

SI:
"After Frei's tapes were examined following his death in 1983, they also had very few pollens."

Marino:
Frei told Dr. Walter McCrone, a noted Shroud critic, that there were 1 to 2 pollen per square centimeter on the tapes, which indicates that there are between 47,000 and 94,000 pollen grains on the Shroud. McCrone, who examined the tapes on July 23, 1988, agreed with this figure (ASSIST Newsletter, June 1990, pg. 7, footnote 11). Frei's pollen findings were studied by Dr. Aharon Horowitz, Israel's leading palynologist, and Dr. Avinoam Danin, professor at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem (the world's expert on botany in Israel) who both agreed with Frei's assertion that the pollen came from Israel (ASSIST Newsletter, June 1990, pg. 3).

SI:
"Accompanying the unscientific pollen evidence were claims that faint plant images have been 'tentatively' identified on the shroud. The floral images were reported by a psychiatrist who has taken up image analysis and made other discredited claims about the shroud image."

Marino:
The images were, in fact, reported in 1983 by a German physicist named Oswald Scheuermann, who then contacted the psychiatrist, who has an extensive background in photography (Whanger and Whanger, The Shroud of Turin: An Adventure in Discovery, Franklin, TN: Providence House Publishers, 1998, pg. 71). Floral images are also acknowledged by a research archaeologist Paul Maloney of the Association of Scientists and Scholars International for the Shroud of Turin, Ltd. (ASSIST Newsletter June 1990, pg. 5) and by the authors of the paper given in August 1999, who include Dr. Avinoam Danin and Dr. Uri Baruch of the Israel Antiquities Authority (Flora of the Shroud of Turin, St. Louis: Missouri Botanical Garden Press, pg. 16ff). As far as "other discredited claims about the shroud image," the author does not give any citations. While many people may disagree with the psychiatrist's claims, disagreement does not amount to discrediting.

SI:
"Actually, two tests of dubious scientific merit that purported to prove the 'blood' genuine were not supported by batteries of analyses conducted by internationally known forensic serologists. Indeed the stains, which were unnaturally "picturelike" and suspiciously still-red, were conclusively proved to be red ocher and vermilion tempera paint."

Marino:
Dr. Alan Adler of Western Connecticut State University, an expert in the heme and porphyrin components of human blood and the late Dr. John Heller of the New England Institute, both members of STURP, authored several peer-review scientific papers that cite no less than 12 different tests that indicate that there is blood on the Shroud (Applied Optics, Vol. 19, no. 16-August 14, 1980 and Canadian Society Forensic Journal, Vol. 14, no. 3, 1981). Regarding the "suspiciously still-red" red blood, Dr. Adler says that this is what would actually happen to a man who had undergone torture and crucifixion (the actual scientific explanation is complicated and unnecessary here) (cited in Ian Wilson, The Blood and the Shroud, New York: Free Press, 1998, pg. 89). Italian scientists have also asserted that the Shroud contains human blood. The claim that the blood is red ocher and vermilion tempera paint has not been "conclusively proved," and is, in fact, contested by numerous scientists and researchers.

SI:
"Uncritical reportage suggested the Shroud of Turin gained credibility by being linked to another notorious cloth, the Sudarium of Oviedo, which some believe was the 'napkin' that covered Jesus' face. ¦It has no historical record prior to the eighth century. The supposed matching of bloodstains on the Turin and Oviedo cloths is but another exercise in wishful thinking."

Marino:
While it is true that there is no clear historical record of the Oviedo cloth before the eighth century, there are several pre-8th century references to the sudarium of Jesus. A 3-day Congress on the Oviedo cloth was held in 1994 in Spain with many renowned scientists and researchers taking part. Dr. Adler accepts the persuasiveness of the matching of the bloodstains between the cloths ("Updating Recent Studies on the Shroud of Turin, chapter 17 in American Chemical Society Symposium Series No. 625, Archaeological Chemistry: Organic, Inorganic, and Biochemical Analysis).

SI:
"The shroud cloth was radiocarbon dated to circa 1260-1390 by three separate, highly respected labs and the radiocarbon date is consistent with a fourteenth-century bishop's report to Pope Clement VII that an earlier bishop had discovered the forger and that he had confessed."

Marino:
There have been numerous articles and books that relate significant problems with the methodology and data of the C-14 dating. The case for the supposed confession of the forger is not convincing, first of all, because the document was unsigned, undated, and was never actually sent to its intended recipient; it is only attributed to the bishop and is a very complex issue in its own right. Secondly, considering that there were approximately 40 shrouds in the Middle Ages being touted as the actual burial cloth of Jesus and that many scientists and most artists today maintain that the Shroud could not have been forged, it is more likely that the report is referring to a cloth other than the Shroud of Turin.

For more information, pro and con, on the Shroud via the Internet, see http://www.shroud.com (put together by a member of STURP). When it comes to accepting the SI author's assertions on the Shroud of Turin, I prefer to remain, shall we say, skeptical.