Starting off with the idea that many reasons may be given against
the theory of petrification, he commences with number one, and
then he stops; it is true he gives one other reason, but neglects
to number it; and the two reasons are--
First, that evidences of stratification appear on the body, thereby
assuming that they would not appear in a petrified body; and,
secondly, that the separate members of the body are not detached
from each other as they were in life, assuming also that this does
occur in cases of petrifaction.
Are these assumptions correct as matters of fact?
The evidence as to the existence of strata in this body is very
conflicting. A number of professional persons who visited this
figure on Saturday, and subjected it to close scrutiny with a
powerful magnifying glass, and who all, by the way, hold the
"statue theory," say there were no evidences of stratification in
the body; that what appears to be such is simply the difference
in shading, produced by the greater or less density of the material
composing the figure. The appearances indicating stratification
are also explainable by the action of the water, charged with
carbonate of lime, upon the body. The line of contact between
the body and the water would necessarily receive a deposit of lime,
causing a straight line of lighter color to appeal oi the body. It
is also a fact, which I have learned from quite a number who first
visited the body when it was submerged in water, that the present
water level leaves exposed the nose, eyebrow and breast at the
points where some persons now think they see stratification.
Pages:
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52