tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8955388713581848615.post2569401800594315281..comments2024-03-14T08:08:39.968+08:00Comments on The Shroud of Turin: My reply to Prof. Nicholas Allen (assumed)Stephen E. Joneshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16183223752386599799noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8955388713581848615.post-37982054839882446272024-01-22T00:40:56.144+08:002024-01-22T00:40:56.144+08:00Prof. Allen.
I have replied to your comment abov...Prof. Allen. <br /><br />I have replied to your comment above in a separate post, "<a href="https://theshroudofturin.blogspot.com/2024/01/my-reply-to-prof-nicholas-allen-assumed.html" rel="nofollow">My reply to Prof. Nicholas Allen (assumed) #2</a>."<br /><br />Stephen E. JonesStephen E. Joneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16183223752386599799noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8955388713581848615.post-41804199738325317892024-01-03T09:35:28.192+08:002024-01-03T09:35:28.192+08:00Prof. Allen (assumed).
I will reply to your comme...Prof. Allen (assumed).<br /><br />I will reply to your comment in a separate post.<br /><br />However, as I have just started a new series, "<a href="https://theshroudofturin.blogspot.com/2024/01/prehistory-of-shroud-1-44-evidence-is.html" rel="nofollow">Prehistory of the Shroud (1) #44</a>," it will be when that part (1) of that series ends, which will be a long time.<br /><br />Stephen E. Jones<br />By way of guidance as to what I mean by `offensive' and `sub-standard,' I regard comments to my blog as analogous to letters to the Editor of a newspaper. If the Editor of a newspaper would not publish a comment because it is `offensive' and/or `sub-standard,' then neither will I. It does not mean that if I disagree with a comment I won't publish it. I have published anti-authenticist comments and other comments that I disagreed with, and I have deleted `offensive' and/or `sub-standard' comments that are pro-authenticist. `Sub-standard' includes attempting to use my blog as a platform to publish a commenter's own views, and also bare links to other sites with little or no actual comments. By `off-topic' I mean if a comment has little or nothing to do with the topic(s) in the post it is under (except for under the then current post).Stephen E. Joneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16183223752386599799noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8955388713581848615.post-14728838702381706832024-01-02T14:44:30.203+08:002024-01-02T14:44:30.203+08:00Your objection to Dr Allen’s use of a quartz lens ...Your objection to Dr Allen’s use of a quartz lens is meaningless. Da Vinci would have used a camera obscura to create the shroud. Allen’s use of the lens only speeds the process by allowing a much wider aperture. 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.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8955388713581848615.post-90869657817282195062020-12-17T08:04:00.147+08:002020-12-17T08:04:00.147+08:00Antero
>Dear Dr. Stephen Jones
Again it's...Antero<br /><br />>Dear Dr. Stephen Jones<br /><br />Again it's plain Mr.<br /><br />>Enjoyed reading this great post, nevertheless I think I can add two important facts that also dismiss Professor Allen's theory of a fake Shroud.<br /><br />I was not trying to cover every problem with Allen's medieval photography theory. In the post above I have given links to my previous posts where I had more comprehensively refuted Allen's theory.<br /><br />>1-Besides directionality, Professor Allen's image lacks real 3D encoding<br /><br />Thanks. See <a href="https://tinyurl.com/ybg3u5z5" rel="nofollow">07Aug16</a> where I covered that.<br /><br />>2-STURP chemical analysis of the Shroud's samples did not demonstrate the presence of silver or silver salts and neither did X-Ray fluorescence or Mass Spectrometry, on image and non image fibers.<br /><br />Ditto. Allen claims, most implausibly, that it was all washed away! <br /><br />The only silver traces on the Shroud were found near the burn holes, and this finding is easilly explained by the melting reliquary silver during 1532 Chambery's fire that damaged the Shroud<br /><br />That silver traces were found near the burned areas, shows that if there was any silver left from Allen's claimed silver salts, it would have been found.<br /><br />>Regards<br />Antero de Frias Moreira<br />(Centro Português de Sindonologia) <br /><br />Regards to you.<br /><br />Stephen E. Jones<br />----------------------------------<br />MY POLICIES. Comments are moderated. Those I consider off-topic, offensive or sub-standard will not appear. Except that comments under my current post can be on any one Shroud-related topic without being off-topic. To avoid time-wasting debate, I normally allow only one comment per individual under each one of my posts. I reserve the right to respond to any comment as a separate blog post.Stephen E. Joneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16183223752386599799noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8955388713581848615.post-84228413941796440732020-12-16T01:34:59.271+08:002020-12-16T01:34:59.271+08:00Dear Dr. Stephen Jones
Enjoyed reading this great...Dear Dr. Stephen Jones<br /><br />Enjoyed reading this great post, nevertheless I think I can add two important facts that also dismiss Professor Allen's theory of a fake Shroud.<br />1-Besides directionality, Professor Allen's image lacks real 3D encoding<br />2-STURP chemical analysis of the Shroud's samples did not demonstrate the presence of silver or silver salts and neither did X-Ray fluorescence or Mass Spectrometry, on image and non image fibers.<br />The only silver traces on the Shroud were found near the burn holes, and this finding is easilly explained by the melting reliquary silver during 1532 Chambery's fire that damaged the Shroud<br />Regards<br />Antero de Frias Moreira<br />(Centro Português de Sindonologia)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com