Jabba writes:

– It seems to me that

1. The “DIRECT” evidence – the unofficial, but highly probable, history of the Shroud, as well as the vast majority of scientific testing that’s been done on the Shroud – greatly supports Shroud authenticity…
2. The evidence against (as illustrated(?) by McCrone’s attitude/approach in his emails to Marino) is actually much weaker than the “ANALYTIC” — but casual — reader will generally assume.
3. It is the “INDIRECT” evidence that causes the analytic reader to insist that the Shroud is fake.
image4. (Ironically enough, analytic readers tend to place too much FAITH in Sherlock Holmes. They believe that they have “eliminated the impossible” (the supernatural), and consequently believe that we are stuck with fakery — “however improbable” such a conclusion is, given the DIRECT evidence. See what I mean?)
5. I have a way to expose these analytic, but wrong-headed, readers to the world, and SHOW the world that the Shroud probably is the authentic burial cloth of Jesus.
6. This would be a very good thing.

– If I can get anyone interested, I’ll be happy to go on.

You got me interested. Go on, please.

Thoughts for a Sunday Morning: “If I am right, then . . . I am right.” « Shroud of Turin Blog