David Rolfe writes:
While in Torun recently I managed to spend some time with Professor Danin who kindly gave me an extended interview. We discussed, among other things, how it might be possible to assess the validity of his work. The interview can be linked from the opening page of www.shroudtv.com
* * * or better yet CLICK HERE. And from the resulting page (pictured):
Plants first became relevant to the Shroud investigation as the result of a "spur-of-the-moment" idea from the late Max Frei (Frei-Sulzer to give him his fall name) who is pictured left above. He was an eminent Swiss criminologist based in Zurich and a frequent visitor to Turin where he was often consulted on local investigations. On one such visit in 1973 he was asked to witness and authenticate a new set of photographs that were being taken of the Shroud. He took out a roll of clear sticky tape that he carried as part of his investigator’s tools and asked if he could press it against the Shroud to take away some of the microscopic bits of dust that would stick to it. Permission was granted. Professor Avinoam Danin – an eminent Israeli botanist – (pictured right) was drawn into the Shroud investigation as a direct result of Frei’s work. He has been credited with producing the most supportive evidence for the Shroud’s authenticity. Max Frei begins the story in the first clip below.
See: Plants
Theres is actually a prestine image of a flower on one of the pictures taken with the VP-8 Image analyzer.It is a picture of the torso and face.The flower image is above and to the side of the face image.It is clear as day and impossible that it could be an anomaly of the linen threads or of a crease or fold.The image is too perfect to be anything but what it depicts, a flower.
R
There is only one way to know if there is really something : Chemical analysis of some fibers taken from the surface of the supposed flower image. Since STURP didn’t analysed these types of things in 1978 (nobody knew anything about them), we can be 100% sure. Also, even if there’s really an image there, that don’t mean that it came on the shroud by the same process than the body image. That don’t mean the nature of this flower image is the same… So, to stay in the field of science, I think we have to be careful here and try not to extrapolate too much.
The way I look at it is : Let’s wait and see what will come of a future chemical analysis from this area. That’s the only way we can be sure…
I was just making the point that a 3d image of a flower IS visible and not an imaginary thing.Many people refuse to believe flower images exist AT ALL on the Shroud and although I have found it hard to see any of them from normal pictures of the actual Shroud, I have seen it clearly on a VP-8 3D rendering….I agree this 3d flower image could have occured at any time, but it is there nonetheless!…This also must allow us not to refute too quickly other things said to be found on the Shroud; coins over the eyes for example, which by the way most VP-8 renderings of the face do show some kind of objects or protrusions over the eyes.
Chemical analysis, yes I agree needs to be continued on a large scale but this is up to the Church.
Mind you they have found pollens of many plants on the Shroud, but that is another blog.
Hello Ron !
Something can look like an image of something and can really be something else. You got the be careful… Unless there’s a chemical test who will prove me that there really is an oxidation of the surface of the fibers in this zone, I prefer being prudent regarding these supposed images. Anyway, for the moment, I don’t think we can rely on images like that to prove the Shroud is genuine… If chemical test prove it is really there, then we could try to figure out why it is there and if this is a proof that the Shroud is genuine…
Good question for you : Even if science prove there is really an image somewhere beside the body image on the Shroud, there will always be some room for questionning what is it really !!! It is not everyone who agree about the representation of these images… Some would say it is a flower, some other guy will say it is just a smudge without meaning ! You see, even with a proof that there is something, the question will remain about what this thing really is !
I think, if I could post that vp-8 image here, there would be no doubt you’d see a figure of a flower, you or anyone else. It’s really that clear and pronounced.Anyone who would deny they see this particular flower ‘image’ would be blind or lying.But as I said before I agree with you, until further testing, chemical and otherwise, I guess it’ll continue to be an anomoly.
Ron, can you send me the image that you are talking about. I can post it here if it is a jpg, gif, png, etc.. Send it to drporter@optonline.net.
Dan Porter
Done.
Ron.
Ron, thanks for sending the file. I have put it at http://shroudofturin.files.wordpress.com/2011/07/3dexamples.jpg . I see what you are talking about but I’m not convinced that it is an image of a flower. I have long argued that there are images on both sides of the head that look like flowers but that I think they are formed by background noise. I’m willing to be convinced otherwise but this image is not clear enough to me.
Dan Porter
Your quite welcome, and as I mentioned in my e-mail, I will continue to search for the ‘larger’ image of what I sent, which I would say shows it much clearer.The problem with the ‘background’ noise probability is that you would have background noise scattered thru-out the image, wouldn’t you? The fact that there are flat spots or plains on the image where expected and except for where there are burns or actual known images and threading, tells me that it is not background noise or some other anomoly.I’m no export though, that is just a laymen’s point of view.
Hello Ron and Dan !
On this particular subject, I want to report that Barrie Schwortz, the photographer of the STURP team and owner of the Shroud.com website often say that we must be extremely prudent regarding the possibility of some images (flowers, coins, writtings, etc.) on the Shroud. Barrie’s opinion on this subject is probably like mine. Since there’s no proof of that these images really exists, we must have some doubts about the reality of their presence on the Shroud. As you said Ron, you’re not (and I’m not too !) an expert in imagery. But Barrie is a professional of this field and I think we can trust his opinion. So, we must be really prudent with all these potential images and never claim that their presence is a FACT and/or a proof of the authenticity of the Shroud… I think there’s many other real proven facts that exist and who are better proofs of the authenticity of the relic… In my opinion, when it comes to analysing the Shroud, we must focus on these facts way before the potential images on the cloth.
And, to finish, here’s what Ray Rogers wrote on this subject, in his book “A chemist’s perspective on the Shroud of Turin” : “Lateral neutral inhibition : Many observers look at the image for such a long time that they begin to see things that others do not. They attempt to use these observations to prove the resurrection of Jesus or some other belief. The ability to see structure in amorphous bodies is responsible for our ability to see figures in the clouds. Physiologically, the effect is explained in terms of lateral neutral inhibition : the human eye enhances edge contrasts. The mind plays games with what we think we see. Some devoted observers see images of flowers, teeth, bones, etc. on the Shroud. A statement like “I think I see” is totally unacceptable in a scientific discussion. These images are sometimes best seen after multiple contrast enhancements reduce the image to a pattern of dots.”
As I say, until chemical tests will be done on theses parts of the Shroud where there is potential images, let’s focus our attention on the many proven facts that are well accepted today. The main one for me is the fact that there is really human blood on the Shroud and, more than this, it is bloody material coming from the clothed wounds of someone who’ve been tortured and who died… Putting this piece of evidence (a proven fact !) along with the body images we see on the cloth and there’s a good probability that this cloth is really a real Shroud of someone who’ve been tortured and died exactly like what is reported about Christ in the Gospels ! And this good probability don’t need supposed images of flowers or anything else to exist !
That’s what I think…
I’m not trying to prove anything here! Especially that by seeing a flower image proves the Shroud is authentic.Just saying I see a flower image and it is quite clear to me, as clear as the nose or fingers of the same 3D image.Why you folks don’t see it I don’t know, as it’s clear as day to me.As I said earlier I do not see the flower image on regular photos at all, or pretend too, but the first time I saw this 3D rendering it popped out like a slap in the face.I wasn’t staring at the picture for hours putting myself into a trance, I saw it immediately.Also I think when Barrie made that statement he was talking more precisely about the ‘coin images’. I have never heard him refute the flower image(s).Even if he has and as he has access to much better photos then us, it still does not refute what I see….maybe its just a bad photo, I don’t know, but I know what I see and I have excellent vision.
Ron
My last comment was more directed toward M. Whanger, M. Danin and others who try hard to convince people that theses images are a proof of the authenticity of the Shroud. SORRY FOR THEM BUT IT IS NOT A SCIENTIFIC PROOF AT ALL !!!
Sorry Ron if you thought I was talking about you ! It’s not the case. And if you listen to Danin’s interview carefully, I think he talk about Barrie without mentionning his name and when he talk about him (a photographer from California), I think M. Danin really believe that Barrie isn’t in favor of this flowers images hypothesis !!! I really don’t think Barrie is a good advocate for those kind of hypothesis !
Finally, can you tell me where exactly you see a flower on the 3D image linked above ? I can’t tell… Thanks !
Hi Yannick, check out the link above in post #8, there are three images, the top left image in green showing the shroud image front head to thighs.Look to the left of the head just beside the burn marks.
As for using Barrie to make your point you must consider Barrie is talking about photo images of the Shroud, not VP-8 images.I don’t think Barrie is responsible for any VP-8 images found anywhere or can claim to be an expert in them anymore then anyone else.So his conclusions would stem from typical photos and I agree with him, as I mentioned before; I have never noticed a single flower image on any ‘photos’ of the Shroud.That’s why I found it very interesting the flower image that basically ‘jumps out’ in the 3D rendering.
Also I don’t think it’s fair to chastise Wanger and Danin so quickly or to say they believe their findings are ‘proof’. I see their findings has possible ‘clues’ to the authenticity of the Shroud, nothing more, and I believe that is their stand.Although Barrie is right in that we must be prudent in such findings, it would not be very logical to dispell them too quickly either.We’ve agreed several times that further studies are required, much more, also chemical analysis ‘may’ render some interesting findings if areas where flowers, plants have been seen are tested.Pollen evidence can be very telling and relatively precise. But chemical studies will never prove or disprove the apparent coin images.I don’t see these potential images has being any different from all other characteristics of the Shroud as they can be very telling if found to be real, especially the coins.There has been much said about the coins, dozens of articles and papers, yet you cannot refute certain things, ‘definite roundel protrusions over the eyes’ seen especially clear in VP-8 images…background noise?, maybe, but that is just an assumption.My mind is still open to any conclusions on this subject and just find all the research fascinating.
Ron