Part 7 of the Jones & Freeman Brouhaha about Ian Wilson
Yup, we are up to part seven of Stephen Jones’ “My critique of Charles Freeman’s "The Turin Shroud and the Image of Edessa: A Misguided Journey," part 7: "The Turin Shroud and the Image of Edessa.” See previous part 1, part 2, part 3, part 4, part 5 and part 6. And there is more to come if I read Jones correctly.
Read slowly. You may have to read the following quote twice; maybe three times:
Freeman’s "For reasons that completely escape me, Wilson claims that the Image of Edessa is none other than the Shroud of Turin," is an "Argument from Ignorance" ("I cannot understand this, therefore it cannot be true") by Freeman, if not an "Argument from Personal Incredulity" ("I cannot believe this, therefore it cannot be true"). That it completely escapes Freeman the reasons why Wilson claims that the Image of Edessa is the Shroud of Turin (apart from it being an damaging admission for a scholar to make, that he cannot understand the position he is criticising), is no reason why the Image of Edessa cannot be the Shroud of Turin!
And why this? Is there not a more respectful way of making this point?
But perhaps the real reason Freeman only allowed his readers to see a blurry photograph of this copy of the Image of Edessa is because it reveals at least eight "Vignon Markings": wisps of hair representing the reversed 3 bloodstain (no. 15);