[A]s is always the case with the Shroud it seems hard to think that meaningful follow ups will occur, unfortunately.
That could almost be a slogan for what I wish this blog could be. Axiomatically, Thomas is referring specifically to Max Frei’s analysis. How many other shroud findings or hypotheses does this apply to?
And David Goulet, just yesterday, wrote of a newspaper story:
It’s often pointed out here how authentists have turned certain ‘myths’ about the Shroud into ‘accepted facts’ simply by repeating them enough. I see what’s good for the goose….
Colin Berry, very correctly, is expressing similar sentiments in comments he wrote:
Have you ever wondered why Messrs. Fanti, Di Lazzaro, Jackson etc etc are not beavering away as we speak, accumulating and publishing more and more experimental data in support of their corona discharge, laser beam or other radiation models? Go figure, as they say.
Colin goes further. He thinks the onus is on Fanti et. al. I agree, mostly. We also need to encourage independent re-examination. by others That applies to Frei’s work. And Rogers. And Zugibe. And the carbon dating labs. It applies to many things. How many things have we talked about in this blog? The Blue Quad Mosaics come to mind. What else? There seems to be something, maybe pot shards, over the eyes. Really? Still, with newer photographs?
Thinks: who was it who said ” I won’t insult your intelligence by suggesting you really believe what you just said?
Who was it? Were you thinking William F. Buckley? Colin, we’ve been there before when you declared that William F. Buckley wrote, “The purpose of an open mind is to close it . . .”
Can we confirm either of these often-attributed-to-Buckley quotations? Wikiquotes would like to know.
What many beliefs about the shroud need to be confirmed? Colin, to his credit, has not rested on his laurels. Many others have not. Many have. Many do.