imageInteresting review of Robert K. Wilcox’s book in A Superfluous Man:

Mr. Wilcox brings to the study of the Shroud a long and first-hand experience of the various scientific tests that have been performed on the cloth, which has been photographed, poked, prodded, burned, clipped, and carbon-dated on numerous occasions over the past century. To sum up the mountain of evidence that has been collected: No one is one whit closer to understanding what the Shroud is (or what it represents) than the day that Secondo Pia first analyzed the photographic negative of the image contained within the Shroud’s fibers.

Whilst making a laudable attempt to preserve his objectivity, Mr. Wilcox still betrays too much of a pro-Shroud bias to convince naysayers. (Incidentally, this reviewer places himself in the, shall we say, “Protestant” camp of sindology–perhaps not as impervious to persuasion as an ardent rationalist but certainly not as credulous as one Dr. Paul Vignon, whose modestly titled The Holy Shroud of Turin Versus Science, Archeology, History, Iconography, and Logic (1939) is typical of the pro-Shroud genre.)

I found the book more objective than the superfluous blogger does. It wasn’t an insult. He calls himself that.