My reply to Prof. Nicholas Allen (assumed) #2

Copyright © Stephen E. Jones[1]

Prof. Allen (assumed)

This is my reply to your comment of 2 January under my 15 November 2020 post, "My reply to Prof. Nicholas Allen (assumed)." Your words are bold.

Anonymous said

Your objection to Dr Allen’s use of a quartz lens is meaningless. I did not object to your use of a quartz lens. I objected to your use of a modern synthetic quartz lens. You titled your book, "The Turin Shroud and the Crystal Lens" [Right (enlarge)] when hidden deep within it, not mentioned in the index, you admitted that you had used a piece of synthetic quartz to make your 180 mm lens, not a natural quartz crystal:

"Through the kindness of my institution I was made a loan with which I purchased a blank piece of high grade quartz. After many months of waiting, a blank sent from Switzerland, finally arrived in South Africa, where through the sterling efforts of both Derek Griffith and Dan van Staaden, it was ground and polished into a bi-convex lens"[AN98, 99].

Yet, you yourself wrote that your medieval photograph theory is based on "technology available to certain medieval societies c 1200--1350 AD" and "quartz (rock-crystal)":

"Since 1990 the author has formally conducted a number of experiments which have employed the kind of technology available to certain medieval societies c 1200--1350 AD, and has shown that it is quite possible to produce a chemically stable (fixed) negative photographic image of a human corpse on a piece of linen employing only three substances, all of which were available to people living well before the thirteenth century. These substances are quartz (rock-crystal), the silver salts (specifically silver nitrate (eau prime and silver) and/or silver sulphate (oil of vitriol and silver) and ammonia (urine)..."[AN95, 21]

You need to go back to square 1. Find a large, optical quality quartz rock crystal, that would have been available to your medieval photographer. Then you need to have that quartz rock crystal ground, using only medieval technology, into an optical quality 180 mm = 7 inch diameter, circular quartz lens. Your failure to do that shows that you can't do it and therefore your medieval photograph theory failed from its very outset!

Da Vinci would have used a camera obscura to create the shroud. Leonardo da Vinci (1452-1519) was born in 1452, ~98 years after the Shroud first appeared in undisputed history in 1355.

Allen’s use of the lens only speeds the process by allowing a much wider aperture. You yourself have written that medieval glass would have "screened out the vital ultraviolet wavelengths in sunlight that had an effect on silver nitrate" and "the only suitable material for a medieval forger ... would have also been optical quality rock-crystal":

"I also discovered, very early on in my investigation, that despite the rapidity that certain silver salts reacted to direct sunlight, that silver nitrate samples when placed under crown glass remained unaffected in the short term. Glass screened out the vital ultraviolet wavelengths in sunlight that had an effect on silver nitrate. Now, the only substance which does allow the transmission of UV light, is optical quality rock-crystal (quartz), and as it turns out the only suitable material for a medieval forger (who was employing silver nitrate) would have also been optical quality rock-crystal. Medieval glass would have been totally unsuitable as a medium for this kind of lens, as it was invariably tinted and its formula certainly not much different to modern window and bottle glass. I now know that silver sulphate can be exposed successfully with a modern glass lens as well. However, it is far more likely that the forgers used quartz since it was an easily obtainable, clear material, whereas optically clear glass would have been very difficult to produce at this time[AN98, 86]

The only critical question is whether his technique replicates physical details of the shroud, because da Vinci's ability to project focused images onto paper (or linen) are well known. He described them in his writings. See above that Da Vinci was born nearly a century after the Shroud first appeared in undisputed history in 1355!

You wrote that the "connection between da Vinci and the Shroud" was "highly dubious" and the unknown "genius" who invented photography, and created the Shroud by photography, "must be found in the years shortly before 1357":

"In this regard, despite the recent spate of interest in a highly dubious connection between da Vinci and the Shroud of Lirey, our sought after genius must be found in the years shortly before 1357"[AN98, 76].

So your "Medieval Photography" theory requires that there was 1) "in the years shortly before 1357" almost a century before Da Vinci was born; 2) an unknown "genius"; 3) who invented photography; 4) created the Shroud by photography; 5) didn't photograph anything else; 6) left no writings or drawings describing his invention; 7) didn't tell anyone about it; 8) didn't sell or give the Shroud away (otherwise the the buyer/receiver would know who the "genius" was); or 9) died without the Shroud being found in his possessions, otherwise it would be known who the "genius" was. For once I agree with Joe Nickell, that your theory is "astonishingly absurd":

"Knowledgeable skeptics were avoided. Instead, viewers were subjected to the astonishingly absurd notion of an art historian named Nicholas Allen that the image was "the world's first photograph." (The technique was supposedly invented to make a fake shroud and then conveniently lost for subsequent centuries!)"[NJ04].

The Pray Codex alone (and it isn't alone!) proves that the Shroud

[Above (enlarge): "The Entombment" (upper) and "Visit to the Sepulchre" (lower) in fol. 28 of the Hungarian Pray Codex (1192-95)[BI69].]

existed at least 160 years before 1355. For references below see 04Oct18.

The upper scene contains the following seven correspondences with the Shroud: 1. Jesus is lying in a shroud-like pose, which was uncommon in the art of that period. 2. He is completely naked (unique in the 12th century; 3. He is about to be wrapped in a double body length shroud (see 27May12). 4. Jesus' hands are crossed, right over left, awkwardly at the wrists, covering his genitals. 5. His fingers are unnaturally long; 6. Jesus' hands have four fingers each but no thumbs. 7. Red marks in Jesus' scalp and forehead, match the crown of thorns puncture marks and the `reversed 3' bloodstain on the Shroud.

The lower scene of fol. 28 (above) contains the following further three correspondences with the Shroud: 8. The sarcophagus lid (which together with the sarcophagus represents the empty tomb (Mk 16:1-6), has a representation of the Shroud's herringbone weave pattern. 9. Red zig-zag lines in the sarcophagus lid represent the blood trickles down on the Shroudman's arms. 10. Two patterns of four and five tiny circles in the sarcophagus lid and sarcophagus, represent the two basic patterns of four and five `poker holes' on the Shroud.

Another of the four drawings has a further four correspondences with the Shroud: 11. The nail wound in Jesus' right hand (left facing on the Shroud) is in his wrist, while its counterpart in the other hand (hidden on the Shroud) is in Jesus' palm (as per Christian tradition). 12. A red elliptical mark on Jesus' right chest is about the same size, shape and location (except it is on the left-facing side) as the spear in the side wound on the Shroud). 13. Jesus is clothed in a long shroud, the ends of which match those in the entombment scene above. 14. An angel is holding a cross in which are three nails, corresponding to the three nail wounds on the Shroud (one in each wrist and one through both feet.

[Above (enlarge): "Christ enthroned with the Angel Holding the Instruments of Torture": fol. 28v of the Pray Codex.]

As can be seen above, there are at least fourteen correspondences between the drawings on two folios of the Pray Codex and the Shroud! Clearly this many `coincidences' cannot be the results of chance. The only explanation is that the 11th-12th century artist had before him the Shroud as his `model'! So your "genius ... in the years shortly before 1357" medieval photography theory is again wrong! As are theories based on Bishop d'Arcis 1389 memorandum that the Shroud was "cunningly painted" in c. 1355[WI79, 267], wrong. As is the 1260-1390 radiocarbpn dating of the Shroud[DP89, 611], wrong!

The following will help me write your section in Chapter "16. Sceptics and the Shroud" and Chapter 17. "How was the Image Formed?" of my book in progress, "Shroud of Turin: Burial Sheet of Jesus!" See 06Jul17, 03Jun18, 04Apr22, 13Jul22 & 8 Nov 22.

Photograph Allen's is the only claimed replication of the Shroud which replicates its full-length, front and back. Even though Allens's replication fails to include major features of the Shroud (see below), as Ian Wilson pointed out, the value of Allen's contribution to sindonology is that he demonstrated that the Shroud image really is a photograph, and not a painting as claimed by most Shroud sceptics, led by Walter McCrone (1916-2002):

"Now it can also be said unreservedly of Professor Allen that more than anyone else before him he has demonstrated that the Shroud's image really is photographic in character. This is in fact something that those in favour of the Shroud's authenticity have been saying for years and is certainly bad news for Walter McCrone and others"[WI98, 216].

Wilson himself in 1978 described the formation of the Shroud image as a "`snapshot' of the Resurrection" of Jesus:

"Even from the limited available information, a hypothetical glimpse of the power operating at the moment of creation of the Shroud's image may be ventured. In the darkness of the Jerusalem tomb the dead body of Jesus lay, unwashed, covered in blood, on a stone slab. Suddenly, there is a burst of mysterious power from it. In that instant ... its image ... becomes indelibly fused onto the cloth, preserving for posterity a literal `snapshot' of the Resurrection"[WI78, 211]!

Circular firing squad Is defined as, "A group, usually a political party, that is allied against a common enemy or opponent but whose internal disagreements and attacks end up doing more damage to each other than to their target"[CFS]. In advancing his Medieval Photography Theory, Allen attacks the image formation theories of his fellow sceptics. And leading sceptic Joe Nickell (1944-), returned fire, dismissing Allen's theory that the image on the Shroud was the world's first photograph, but the technique was then lost for subsequent centuries, as "astonishingly absurd"[NJ04]

Image characteristics Allen agreed with STURP that the man's image was:
• Superficial: The image is essentially a straw-yellow discolouration of the uppermost fibres of the linen threads of the Shroud's fabric. This discolouration has not 'penetrated' the individual threads which make up the Shroud nor is the image visible on the underside of the Shroud[AN98, 28].

• Three-dimensional: The intensity of the image varies according to the distance of the body from the cloth. In other words features such as the nose, forehead and cheeks are more intense than areas such as the neck, ankles, and elbows[AN98, 28-29].

• Negative: The image acts like a photographic negative which is as visually coherent as a positive photograph when its polarity is reversed[AN98, 29].

• Directionless: Unlike hand-painted images (e.g., paintings) the image on the Shroud contains no 'directionality'. In other words the image could not have been produced by any technique which involved the use of brushwork[AN98, 29]. Here Allen smuggles in his own definition of non-directional to only exclude brushwork, because his `shroud' is strongly directional by the passage of the sun (see below). But by "non-

[Above (enlarge): Allen's image of a plaster bodycast painted white (left) and a negative photograph of the Shroud's frontal image (right)[EL10] (flipped horizontally for comparison). Note the directional sunlight from above on the head, shoulder, arm, wrist, knee and feet of Allen's image and the total lack of light directionality on the Shroud (the white patches on the Shroudman's side, wrist, arms and feet are dark blood which is white in a photographic negative. See 16Jun19 & 15Nov20.]

directional" STURP meant by any means. STURP member Barrie Schwortz pointed out that Allen's `shroud' photographs contain a strong directionality of light:

"Allen's photographs contain a strong directionality of light. This is obvious from the deep shadows cast on his subject by the strong overhead sunlight he used to create his images (Figure 1). These are clearly seen in the eye sockets, under the nose and chin and below the hands and is unlike the image on the Shroud (Figure 2), which demonstrates no such directionality of light at all. It is further confirmed by the "washing out" of detail in certain parts of the image, most notably the tops of the feet, which received far more light and cumulative exposure than the rest of the body (Figure 3)"[SB00].

So again Allen's medieval photograph theory fails. As Schwortz pointed out:

"In the end, any attempt at duplicating the image on the Shroud of Turin must match all of its physical and chemical properties, not just a select few. It must also withstand the scrutiny of careful, side-by-side comparison to the original"[SB00].

Bibliography
AN95. Allen, N.P.L., 1995, "Verification of the Nature and Causes of the Photonegative Images on the Shroud of Lirey-Chambery-Turin," De Arte 51, Pretoria, UNISA, 21-35, 21.
AN98. Allen, N.P.L., 1998, "The Turin Shroud and the Crystal Lens: Testament to a Lost Technology," Empowerment Technologies: Port Elizabeth, South Africa.
BI69. Berkovits, I., 1969, "Illuminated Manuscripts in Hungary, XI-XVI Centuries," Horn, Z., transl., West, A., rev., Irish University Press: Shannon, Ireland, pl. III.
CFS. "Circular firing squad," The Free Dictionary by Farlex, 2022.
DP89. Damon, P.E., et al., 1989, "Radiocarbon Dating of the Shroud of Turin," Nature, Vol. 337, 16th February, 611-615.
EL10. Extract from Latendresse, M., 2010, "Shroud Scope: Enrie Negative Horizontal," (rotated left 90 degrees), Sindonology.org. [return]
NJ04. Nickell, J., 2004, "PBS `Secrets of the Dead' Buries the Truth About Turin Shroud," Skeptical Inquirer, April 9.
SB00. Schwortz, B.M., 2000, "Is The Shroud of Turin a Medieval Photograph?: A Critical Examination of the Theory," Shroud.com.
WI78. Wilson, I., 1978, "The Turin Shroud," Victor Gollancz: London.
WI79. Wilson, I., 1979, "The Shroud of Turin: The Burial Cloth of Jesus Christ?," [1978], Image Books: New York NY, Revised edition.
WI98. Wilson, I., 1998, "The Blood and the Shroud: New Evidence that the World's Most Sacred Relic is Real," Simon & Schuster: New York NY.

Posted 20 January 2024. Updated 9 February 2024.