Meet me in Saint Louie, Louie. Meet me at the fair.

imageJoe knows because I wrote to him yesterday. My intent was not to dump on him or on plans for a St. Louis conference. I was criticizing the announcement. My point wasn’t even to criticize the Mark Antonacci’s ideas. I have done that in the past and I will do so again just as I criticize Colin Berry or Stephen Jones or Barrie Schwortz or Giulio Fanti or anyone else who pops up on my radar screen. It isn’t easy, HOWEVER, to criticize Joe because he is just too nice, way too trustworthy, way too responsible and way too effective.  He proved that with Ohio 2008.

As I told Joe in a private email, maybe it was because I had just been invited to a neighbor’s home for wine and cheese only to find out after I got there that I had really been invited to meet a political candidate that I would never have voted for under any circumstance.  Similarly, I didn’t like clicking on links that suggested a complete solution to the carbon dating results and how the image was formed. It doesn’t matter that I think it is nutty. Heck, I think every single hypothesis ever suggested for the image is nutty. And, no, I don’t have an idea that is better than any of them.

I trust Joe. But I got an uncomfortable feeling when I started clicking. Maybe it was just me. I would have avoided the links. 

The conference needs a website. Somewhere there should be a tab or something that says “Sponsors.”  There, there should be a “safe” description of the sponsors. And maybe there, there should be a link to their websites. I know the conference will be open and objective. But give that appearance, too.

Okay, I did a crappy job of speaking out yesterday. I apologize to Joe and everyone else. I’ll be there in 2014.

2 thoughts on “Meet me in Saint Louie, Louie. Meet me at the fair.”

  1. Dan,

    I’m glad you’ve seen the light on this. I have never met Mark Anatonocci but I heard reports about his conduct at Jumper’s Notre Dame seminar that were quite disturbing in that he hectored Jumper who was had in fact retracted his previous acceptance of the C14 results. The reason Jumper now accepted authenticity as reported to me was the work of Ray Rogers. That apparently was anathema to Antonocci.

    Confession: I am a 50% Rogers fan and have problem with him his work on image formation. But nobody has solved image formation yet although there are many theories. The ability to produce an image using modern techniques doesn’t decide the issue of what happened in that carved rock tomb 1,983 years ago.

    I may be a newcomer, but that my way or the high way attitude towards individuals seeking he same truth but by a different path in the Shroud community is more than unacceptable, it’s boorish.

    That being said, I’d be interested in what he has to say. I’d even be interested in the what Colin Berry would have to say.

    The only caution to the more strident (and I have been that occasion): If you’re going to give it, you have to take it.

  2. Even so one could think the conference was about Antonacci from the way the sponsor links were presented. Mistakes all around.

Comments are closed.