Quite simply scandalous

imageGo for it, Colin. Express your “disgust and contempt” to the Royal Society. I mean with, “so-called scientists lining up . . . a systematic attempt . . . misinformation, nay, DISINFORMATION . . . [it is] quite simply scandalous.” Why send it only to the president of the society; you should copy the Queen and the Archbishop of Canterbury.

I am now wholly convinced there was a systematic attempt by key members of STURP and many others to eliminate contact scorching aka thermal imprinting as an image mechanism with scarcely any attempt at serious scrutiny. We now have the unedifying sight of so-called scientists lining up to say that it fails to match a superficiality criterion (<200nm) – one that rests on little more than one man’s failure to see something well when immersed in adhesive tape ‘goo’ under a light microscope. More so-called ‘scientists’ have since piled in, claiming without a shred of theoretical or experimental evidence that a scorch can never be as superficial as the image on the Shroud.

That so-called scientists should engage in this kind of misinformation, nay, DISINFORMATION, is quite simply scandalous. I think it time that I redrafted that letter to the Royal Society that I mooted earlier. I was far too neutral and polite in that first draft. I want to convey my disgust and contempt at the way in which pseudo-science is STILL being used to promote the authenticity agenda.


2 thoughts on “Quite simply scandalous”

  1. Well this just goes to show how timely Thiebault Heimburger’s paper is, despite one silly adverse comment. Thiebault seems to have expressed somewhat similar reservations about the STURP conclusions as has CB, but has put in the hard yards himself in an effort to resolve these reservations. I wonder if CB is aware of Thiebault’s paper, or perhaps if he is, no doubt he would run true to form in dismissing anything hostile to his pet theory as pseudo-science, regardless of its true merits.
    There can be, I suppose a “Magnificent Obsession” in pursuing one’s own pet scientific theories, even about the scorching of fabric, but there comes a time to look outside the box, and consider other alternatives, like maybe authenticity!

  2. I guess any scientist that disagrees with him is guilty of being not that great a scientist. Obviously he is the , cough, cough, standard (negligent) scientist.

Comments are closed.