In Part 11, I continue my analysis of the various “Ordinary Artistic” image-forming mechanisms/hypotheses, specifically focusing on hypotheses based on the involvement of sunlight as the image-encoding mechanism.
There are three fundamental types of such hypotheses; i) The Medieval Proto-Photograph (Proto-Photo) models (Picknett & Prince and Nicholas Allen), ii) Nathan D. Wilson’s “Shadow” model and finally, iii) Serge N. Mouraviev’s Solar Reflex model.
*** Important Update: Please note that I have updated the Blog’s main image to remove the original Proto-Photo Blog image out of respect for Nicholas Allen who requested it be removed.
Additionally, I have ensured that the only images of Allen’s that are on this Blog (that I am aware of) are within a 2000 A.D. source, entitled “Is The Shroud of Turin a Medieval Photograph?: A Critical Examination of the Theory“ by Barrie Schwortz (see p.7-8 of Barrie’s paper for details) who has used and cited these photos properly attributed to “Allen, Nicholas P.L. – Verification of the Nature and Causes of the Photo-negative Images on the Shroud of Lirey-Chambery-Turin* [1995]“. Barrie has given me his express permission to post his paper on this Blogsite. (If there are any other such images of Allen’s on here or elsewhere on this Blog that do not follow proper Fair Use/Fair Dealing terms of Copyright, I will take the appropriate action immediately upon being notified of them).
My apologies to Prof. Allen for any inconvience and I hope the above satisfies his concerns regarding the use of his images on this site.
Updated YouTube Video (with Copyright Photo Credits) = https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5ZchRn6NZSo
YouTube Video Link (with some helpful visuals) = https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_zWEn8jz3rM
Anchor Audio Link = https://anchor.fm/real-seeker-ministries/episodes/Shroud-Solo-Show-Part-11–Sunlight-Based-Hypotheses-Proto-Photo–Shadow–Solar-Reflex-Models-e15jg5d
UPDATE ALSO SEE THE LINKS TO MY PREVIOUS SHROUD SOLO SHOWS PARTS #1-10 (WITH RELEVANT FREE LINKS) HERE = https://realseekerministries.wordpress.com/2020/03/14/shroud-solo-shows-part-1-my-300-page-shroud-chapter-ss-lectures/
Recommended Sources (for further study);
a) My Own 300-page Shroud write up (see p.173-188) for more details on these types of image-forming mechanisms;
b) Proto-Photo Method/s Sources:
Nicholas Allen’s Short 3-4 min Video (2017) = https://www.smithsonianmag.com/videos/category/smithsonian-channel/is-this-the-worlds-first-photograph/
The above link is now defunct, but see the CNN doumentary mentioning Allen’s theory in his own words starting approx. around the 30 min mark to the 34 min mark = https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=55Ns2OAAM5o
Blogs on Nicholas Allen’s Proto-Photo technique and results = http://theshroudofturin.blogspot.com/2007/07/leonardo-man-behind-shroud-3.html
& also = http://theshroudofturin.blogspot.com/2016/08/medieval-photography-nicholas-allen.html#5
Allen’s own Paper entitled, “Verification of the Nature and Causes of the Photo-negative Images on the Shroud of Lirey-Chambéry-Turin” (with the images removed stating; “Dr Allen’s original article contained a great deal of illustrative material which could not be reproduced on Internet. But his book on this subject will be available early in 1996, published by Janus, UK.”) = http://www.sunstar-solutions.com/AOP/esoteric/Images_on_the_Shroud_of_Turin.htm
Allen’s 1993 paper entitled, “Is the Shroud of Turin the First Recorded Photograph?” = https://www.academia.edu/26328443/Is_the_Shroud_of_Turin_the_First_Recorded_Photograph
Allen’s 2017 book entitled, “Turin Shroud: Testament to a Lost Technology” from Amazon here = https://www.amazon.com/Turin-Shroud-Testament-Lost-Technology/dp/3330325313
Isabel Piczek on the “Leonardo Davinci Thesis” being nonsense (July 30th, 2015) approx. around the 3:00-10:00 min mark of video = https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IwFDoF4NgsM
Is The Shroud of Turin a Medieval Photograph?- A Critical Examination of the Theory by Barrie M. Schwortz = https://www.shroud.com/pdfs/orvieto.pdf OR (attached below)
Five Reasons Why Some Christians are Shroud Skeptics by Barrie M. Schwortz = https://www.shroud.com/pdfs/fivereasons.pdf OR (see below)
CNN’s “Finding Jesus”: Disingenuous Look at Turin “Shroud”- Famous Shroud skeptic Joe Nickell says “Proto-Photo” methods are foolisness = https://centerforinquiry.org/blog/cnns_finding_jesus_disingenuous_look_at_turin_shroud/?_ga=2.246493060.1601906892.1502386546-415514461.1502386546
The Image on the Shroud of Turin: Clues from the Volckringer and Russell Effects by Allan Mills (while giving his own failed naturalistic mechanism hypothesis (see my evaluation of them in my 300-page Shroud chapeter attached above), he addresses some problem with Proto-Photo methods on p.2), see here = https://www.shroud.com/pdfs/n56part4.pdf OR (see below).
c) Shadow Hypothesis (Nathan D. Wilson) Sources:
See the description of his method on Wilson’s own website under the History tab in Nathan D. Wilson (March 26th, 2005) from http://www.shadowshroud.com/index.htm and/or http://shadowshroud.com/history.htm
See the images of his results on Wilson’s own website under the Images tab in Nathan D. Wilson (March 26th, 2005) from http://www.shadowshroud.com/index.htm and/or http://shadowshroud.com/images.htm
Blog on Nathan Wilson’s Shadow Hypothesis results = https://shroudstory.com/tag/nathan-wilson/
Also see explanation and problems with the “Shadow Hypothesis” in The Shroud of Turin- A Critical Summary of Observations, Data and Hypotheses (Version 4.0)- see explanation of method in “F8” on p.84-85 & Assessement on p.110 as well as explanation of the Proto-Photo method and assessment on p. 84 & 109-110 in the attached document below.
d) Solar Reflex Model (Serge Mouraviev);
His paper here = https://www.shroud.com/pdfs/mouraviev.pdf or below
e) Addtional Sources (on the Minimal Relevant Features or Physical and Chemical Properties of the Shroud Images);
Shroud Solo Show (Part 11B)- Kersten & Gruber Painting Emulsion & “Boiling” Techniques
Discovering some old S&S gold from my 2018 solo series on the Shroud of Turin; in preparing for my RSM Shroud solo show revival, I discovered 2 long since forgotten about epsiodes on the Shroud that I recroded during my time as co-host on S&S back in October of 2018.
I have combined Part 11 on the Kersten & Gruber Method and Part 12 on the “Boiling Hypothesis” into one brand new, never heard before RSM episode Shroud solo series Part 11B- enjoy 🙂
YouTube Video Link = https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TpUO4f6tQrk
Anchor Audio Link = https://anchor.fm/real-seeker-ministries/episodes/Shroud-Solo-Show-Part-11B–Kersten–Gruber-Painting-Emulsion–Boiling-Techniques-e15ttij
PART 11- PODCAST INTRO SUMMARY (THE “PAINTING EMULSION”/“KERSTEN AND GRUBER METHOD”)
In 2018 on S&S, Part 11 was intended to be a self-contained Podcast that addresses our first “minor” image-forming mechanism; the “Painting Emulsion Hypothesis” (aka. the “Kersten and Gruber Method” as it has become known by). We first give an evaluation of the ridiculous and conspiratory nature of their hypothesis from a historical perspective; they postulated that the Shroud goes back to Jesus and that the Essene’s helped Jesus fake his death and then healed him, leaving behind the Shroud images on the cloth, they also claim the Catholic Church and the 1988 C-14 scientists knew the Shroud dates back to Jesus but then concocted of the C-14 test as a way to hide this fact from people for some unknown reason.
Their historical conspiracy theory aside, they do conduct a scientific experiment which simulates a similar method to how the images were formed on the Shroud. As we shall see, these guys are considered a joke by both Shroud skeptics and Pro-Shroud proponents alike for a reason.
Recommended Sources (for further study):
- Refer to the relevant sources in the “Painting Hypothesis” (posted already), “Powder-Rubbing/Dusting Hypotheses” (posted already), & “Direct-Contact Hypotheses” (upcoming) Podcasts. Also see Kersten and Gruber give a review to Walter McCrone’s book “Judgement Day for the Shroud of Turin” (skeptics vs. skeptics, no need for me to do anything when the Shroud Skeptics themselves seem content to rip each other to shreds) but also includes various Pro and Con reviews of McCrone’s book = http://www.mccroneinstitute.org/v/65/The-Reactions-to-Dr-McCrones-Shroud-Research
- Ian Wilson’s Review of their Theory (includes Historical Element analysis), see here = http://www.shroud.com/pdfs/n37part4.pdf OR attached below.
- STURP Scientist Alan Alder addressed Kersten & Gruber and Other Theories’ Failure, see p.107 = http://www.shroud.com/pdfs/ssi43part10.pdf or attached below.
Part 12- The Boiling Hypothesis;
This Part 12 show was intended to be a stand alone show on S&S in 2018, the Boiling hypothesis stems back to 1503 and posits a simple traditional painting technique (like Walter Mccrone’s addressed in Parts 7 & 8 of this Solo series with the added stipulation that the cloth was then boiled in either water or oil afterwards.
Recommended Sources (for further study):
- “Painting Hypothesis” Sources: This is a minor theory that no one believes in the modern world and since it involves essentially a “traditional painting” technique (with the added boiling element), then the same sources provided in Parts 7 & 8 apply here. See my sources provided there = https://realseekerministries.wordpress.com/2020/03/14/shroud-solo-shows-part-1-my-300-page-shroud-chapter-ss-lectures/
BONUS SOURXE FOR FAN (ON UV RADIATION/SUNLIGHT TESTS USING LASERS BY DILAZZARO);
Bonus Information:
Shroud skeptic and proponent of the Proto-Photo method for explaining the Shroud’s image formation has reached out to voice a couple of complaints against this Blog and my take on his theory. In the interests of transparency and full disclosure, I wish to share his complaints so people are aware of Allen’s criticisms of the show and my response to them. As of today, I have yet to hear back from Prof. Allen and thus, I assume he is satisifed with the steps I have taken to correct or accomodate his concerns; should he have any more issues or requests, he is free to reach out and I will do my best to address them.
Exchanges Thus Far:
Nicholas Allen’s Initial Feedback;
“Remove my copyrighted images from your site imnediately. Your false statements constitute libel. You need to read and check your information before you post falsities about me and my research findings on a public forum. I expect swift and appropriate response and public apology
Sincerely
NPL Allen”
My Immediate Response Via Private Email;
“Mr Allen,
The goal with my Shroud Solo series is to share true knowledge (as best I understand it) about the Shroud for educational purposes and yes this means that I will be sharing the truth as I see it. You may disagree with some of my take on your work but, as you know, that alone does not constitute libel. I also try my best to always share the work of both sides of an issue and include helpful visual images to aid the fans in understanding (if I used your images that was probably intended as my using your primary sources rather than using secondary images from others to help the audience visualize what was being said).
That said, obviously I do not wish to use people’s information against their will and as you have notified me that you wish me to remove some of your copyrighted images- OK I’m happy to oblige. Please inform me as to which images of yours are copyrighted on my Blog that you wish for me to remove and I will of course do so upon seeing that they are indeed copyrighted by you. On my Blog site, I don’t see any images that I posted from you, are you able to tell me the titles of the images so I know what you are referring to?
As to the false statements that you feel amount to the legal definition of libel, once again no intentions of doing that and so yes please inform me as to what specific statement/s you feel qualify under the legal definition and I will consult a lawyer. If you are right and I did indeed commit libel against you unintentionally, then I will be more than happy to post a correction video post of mine along with a public apology (assuming that is agreeable to you).
Beyond that, even if I did not commit libel, I’d still like to know what you refer to as false statements as my goal is to share the truth with people on the Shroud and so I will still make any corrections if I deem are indeed provably false on my part. Another option available if you prefer is that I’d be happy to invite you yourself on the show to set the record straight as you see it so that way you can give your side in your own words; I’ve had Hugh Farey on my show several times now and if you’d like I could arrange for you two to have discussion on your respective image-forming theories (assuming you’d both want to do that).
But yeah, first things first, I need some specifics as to what exactly you feel needs to be removed in terms of copyrighted images and also what particular statements I made that you say are not just false (in your view), but amount to the legal definition of libel.
Sincerely,
Dale”
Also see “How Leonardo da Vinci Fooled History’: Authors Claim Shroud of Turin FAKED” Video by Proto-Photoers by Lynn Picknett & Clive Prince
Real Seeker Ministries 
6 thoughts on “Shroud Solo Show (Part 11)- Sunlight-Based Hypotheses (Proto-Photo, Shadow & Solar Reflex Models) + Bonus Part 11B on Boiling and Painting Emulsion Methods”