I had objected to William Skyvington’s remarks in his blog Antipods. He responded most graciously:

imageMaybe we’ll have a profound debate on my humble Antipodes blog about the alleged authenticity of the Turin Shroud. As Daniel points out quite rightly, the unqualified expression "serious historians" is perfectly unacceptable. I agree that historians who consider that the Shroud is authentic cannot be brushed aside as "not serious". And it’s a fact that I spoke too rapidly and stupidly in suggesting that the only individuals who accredit the authenticity of the Shroud are Roman Catholics. In other words, my article was excessively lighthearted and superficial, and I acknowledge my error in handling a subject of this nature in a flippant manner. Personally, I’m convinced that the Turin Shroud is a medieval hoax, and that the stains on this medieval cloth have nothing whatsoever to do with the alleged crucifixion of an individual named Jesus, some two millennia ago. I suspect that Daniel won’t agree with me. If this is the case, Daniel, please tell us what makes you feel that the Turin Shroud was in fact the cloth that was wrapped around Jesus of Nazareth.