Nicholas Allen continues to push his theory (it has been demonstrated in many ways that the image cannot be a photograph).
AN international television documentary on the controversial Shroud of Turin, which has just been completed, features the work of a Nelson Mandela Bay academic who has been researching the ancient relic for more than a decade.
The Shroud is purported to be the cloth in which the body of Jesus Christ was buried.
Professor Nicholas Allen‘s research resulted in a book in which he explained how the shroud, which appears to carry the imprinted form of Christ, was actually “the first photograph”.
Pioneer Studios from Hammersmith in London filmed the documentary on the mystery behind one of the Catholic Church‘s most important relics, and it will be aired by the Discovery Channel.
The Shroud of Turin was proved to be a 13th or 14th century forgery by carbon dating techniques in 1988 – but that scientific conclusion hasn‘t altogether dispelled the firm belief among many Christians that it is a holy relic.
Allen, formerly dean of the faculty of arts and design at the then Port Elizabeth Technikon, is a sculptor and art historian.
“The documentary is intended to offer a more balanced appraisal of the Shroud‘s import. Apparently another recent documentary was aired in the USA and gave the impression that the shroud was a miracle, so the Discovery Channel decided to commission Pioneer Studios to make a more objective documentary to counter this,” said Allen.
A number of researchers and historians were interviewed for the documentary, mostly Americans.
“I was asked to reconstruct my own experiments from the early 1990s and was also interviewed. My interview took place in the UK at a venue just outside Oxford. For this, I reconstructed a camera obscura, a screen for suspending the shroud and a gibbet for suspending a fibre-glass corpse.”
Allen started his research on the Shroud of Turin out of a passion for history and out of curiosity.
He said he chose his avenue of research because “nobody was looking at how a forgery was made. I started to find out how they did it.
“I started to look at it as a phenomenon and the obvious conclusion it was a photograph.
“Most of my research was based on published work by other researchers. I saw the Shroud of Turin for the first time at the new Millennium exhibition in 2000 in Italy.”
Allen‘s research was published as a thesis, and later in 1998, he published a book The Turin Shroud and the Crystal Lens: Testament to a Lost Technology.
Allen believes the Shroud of Turin is physical evidence that people understood at least the rudiments of primitive photography about five centuries before its accepted discovery in 1799 by Thomas Wedgewood.
In 1988, carbon dating was done by three institutions which came up with exactly the same conclusion that the linen of the shroud was grown between 1260 and 1390.
I was once a shroud maven like yourselves. (I’ve read probably three quarters of all books available in English about the shroud.) Then I found a Twelve Step program for those who, like Thomas, need to have empirical “proof” of the reality of Christ and Christianity. *Hint*
It’s one thing to be a “fool for Christ” in the eyes of the unbeleiving world, quite another to be a “fool for Cloth.”
Grow up in Christ, stop defending a piece of flimflam and discrediting Christ in the process. PUH-LEASE don’t email me breathlessly recounting the arguments in favor of the shroud. I already know them.
The shroud is bunk. Plus it’s blasphemous bunk because it turns believers into weirdos for all the wrong reasons.
Have fun kissing the Popes infallible ass.
What all skeptics do not notice is the fact that a forger only fakes something either preexisting or something which is known throughout the history. He never will fake something which was invented by him, because this is nonsense at all. Both conditions are not satisfied in the case of the Shroud of Turin, because neither the New Testament nor the apocryphal writings mention a single line about the existence of a cloth with the dorsal and frontal images of Jesus’ body. Christian tradition, on the contrary, mentions a cloth with only Jesus’ face (the Veronica veil). Before the Middle Age, nothing is mentioned about it, as well. Why will a supposed forger be at the same time so skilled in order to make such an astonishing masterpiece (which even today is very difficult-if not impossible- to copy) and so silly in order to ‘fake’ something unknown at his time? This would be the greatest paradox of all time!
This is simply nutty. How does Allen explain that there is an image on both sides of the cloth? How is it possible to capture 3D data with a camera? How come there is no photosensitive emulsion on the cloth?
Someone invented a camera 500 years before the camera was really invented, used it once to make a fake shroud, and then it disappeared from history. If someone had invented a working camera, they would have been famous.
This guy is really flakey. If the Discovery Channel is using his weird theory they are falling into the trap the History Channel has gotten into like UFOs and crop circles.
Before you write something defamatory take the time to check your facts. When you have actually read what I have spent more than 20 years studying, perhaps you will be so kind as to retract your fallacious statements from a public forum.
Find out the whole story before you respond in future.
Remember that the world is full of people who have opinions but very few of them actually think. If you are really a “thinker” then you should know this and practice accordingly.
Have seen recently a few programs regarding the photograph theory. I thought you may find the following observation useful. It requires no science, but stands by your theory of a photograph of some sort. For a cloth that was supposed to “wrap” around someone over the head, have always wondered how the 2 images, front and back, meet on a line at the top of the head? If it was wrapped over the head to cover both top and bottom, front and back, then there would be a space between the images. A gap between them when laid flat. The images could not meet together on a thin line? Unless HE was actually paper thin? It really needs no further explaining. It can’t have been wrapped around someone as the top of the head is completely missing. Just a thought…
I recently came accross a new publication titled “Origin the blood of Christ” i think it is well worth a look as the new theories are very interesting.You can find it at Smashwords.com
Ok lets move on to debunk the next phony relic, the painting of Our Lady of Guadalupe. This relic is ovbiously a painting.
I am an artist who has studied the old masters techniques and materials and after looking at the image of OLOG it became clear to me that this supposidly holy relic was a simple painting.
It always puzzled me why OLOG was created in what was clearly a Renasaunce style. Did OLOG have a preference for that way of presenting herself if so why?
I took up the challange to see just who could have painted such a portrait. I looked at the date that the painting was made and then made some comparisons with artists works who were doing art of that type in Europe.
I was convinced that the painting was commissioned by the bishop and produced in Eurpoe as Mexican art of the time was clearly not of that style.
Also comming from Europe would have given a lot of cover as to the Identity of the artist.
It was common in the early chruch in Mexico to import painting and statuary from Europe as a way of teaching the population about Christianity. The art style of the Mexican people which was popular at that time is called Retablos a much simpler style, certianly not Renasaunce.
after several hours of looking at the works of artists that were popular in europe at the time on the internet I notice that there were several who could have done this painting. but clearly one or two looked most likely. Unfortunately I didn’t have the time or interest to take it further.
An Art Historian like Mr. Allen could probably make short work of this project and debunk another tool of deception used by the Catholic Church.
I saw a more recent documentary on the shroud. It explained that a couple researching the shroud had discovered that fibers from around 1200 A.D. were woven into the damaged portions of the shroud. Ironically, the tiny piece that the scientists were allowed to cut off of the cloth contained these fibers. As a result, “older” cloth fibers tainted the results of the carbon dating. They then discovered that carbon dating it again would not be possible because of the chemicals used in the storage and preservation of the shroud which had subsequently been employed. So, the carbon dating was wrong! You folks who still hold onto this carbon dating error theory are in denial. Let’s face it, the shroud is astonishing, and they STILL don’t know how the image was formed. Certainly nothing in the 12th century could have produced it. It is the modern day “doubting Thomas” cure-all; I was appropriately named. :-)
…correcting a typo: I wrote “As a result, “older” cloth fibers tainted the results.” I meant to say that “younger” fibers had tainted the results.
The Italian chapter of CSICOP, i.e. CICAP has just held a conference in Abano Terme, Italy, to celebrate its 20th anniversary. In the course of the conference, Pavia University chemist Luigi Garlaschelli produced an intriguing full-size modern replica of the shroud of Turin, executed in a relatively simple manner, consistent with known Mediaeval technologies and not inconsistent with what we know about the shroud.
I think your fooling yourself! Garlaschelli’s shroud cannot be called a ‘replica’ or even close.His attempt is laughable at best and has been shown to not adhere to most all of the real Shroud traits.Remember to rplicate the Shroud you must replicate all of it’s attributes, not just one or two.Also you must realize that even if the material to make the shroud existed in medieval times one must be aware of it.
oops, didn’t notice that this is already old news. See Stephen Jones above. I personally do not believe that the Turin shroud is an authentic relic. It’s the easy way out of the dilemma. Faith, I fear, is much more complex than that.
While I agree that faith is much more complex than that, I don’t agree that the shroud in fake. Reality, after all, can be very complicated. See the Joe and Lenny Paradox listed to the right.
What all skeptics do not notice is the fact that a forger only fakes something either preexisting or something which is known throughout the history. He never will fake something which was invented by him, because this is nonsense at all. Both conditions are not satisfied in the case of the Shroud of Turin, because neither the New Testament nor the apocryphal writings mention a single line about the existence of a cloth with the dorsal and frontal images of Jesus’ body. Christian tradition, on the contrary, mentions a cloth with only Jesus’ face (the Veronica veil). Before the Middle Age, nothing is mentioned about it, as well. Why will a supposed forger be at the same time so skilled in order to make such an astonishing masterpiece (which even today is very difficult-if not impossible- to copy) and so silly in order to ‘fake’ something unknown at his time?
You are completely right. Your comment is now a full posting.
Comments are closed.