Update Saturday 13th October: this has just appeared under the posting in question:
“I agreed with a complaint by Colin Berry and have blue-penciled out some wording and replaced it with what I felt was appropriate. Apologies to Colin Berry and David Rolfe”.
I thank Dan Porter* for seeing my point of view, and was briefly minded to delete this post. But as I have said all along , this blog was conceived as a warts an’ all account of my attempts to get a handle on the Shroud, and to chart what happens when I quietly drip-feed my conclusions into the public domain. So it would be inconsistent and more besides to go sanitizing it, just as my no-nonsense interpretation of the Shroud as a blood-painted scorch begins to attract some serious flak. I may review that decision in a week or two, but for now this posting stays, without any editing, if only to allow folk on The Other Site to see what the fuss was about.
* The sincerity of which is now thrown into question by this new addition:
“Revised (Paulette concurs by email) to remove a couple of sentences that Colin Berry complained were attacks on his character. Ironic?”.
“Ironic”. What’s that supposed to mean? Anyway, the offending words, claiming I “make things up” have been removed – which for now is all that matters…
From “Paulette”, a US-based science teacher as I recall: “One need only look at Colin Berry to see how anyone can make up and use image characteristics to advance personal agendas.”
So what else is new? Still more of the same steady drip drip of defamatory comment from The Other Site. What’s more, the site’s host not only allows it in his comments section, but in this instance encourages it (I refer to the fact that the above slur on my character was a personal communication elevated to a guest posting).
For the record, I have posted many, many times on image characteristics, both from model scorches or from Shroud Scope images, and cannot recall ever being seriously questioned on observations or conclusions, either here or the other site. Yet here I am accused of “making up” image characteristics (unspecified) and advancing personal agendas (unspecified). Unless Ms. “Science Teacher” can be more specific as to my transgressions, there is no case to answer on my part, but a serious one to answer on hers – like why is she using someone else’s website to defame me, and why does the site’s host allow this anonymous individual to slander/libel a named individual?
Call me mistaken, incompetent, a Mickey Mouse scientist if you wish, lady, which are all valid descriptions if attacking a person’s SCIENCE – and ones I have used regularly and will continue to do so. But don’t tell the world that I “make things up”. My results are always displayed, using photographs wherever possible. I always try to provide enough detail to allow folk to repeat my experiments and reproduce my findings.
I have not devoted my entire career (and now retirement) to scientific research and teaching (yes, teaching) to tolerate poison pen letters sent to Dan Porter from anonymous individuals, hiding behind first names or pseudonyms- ones that attack my basic integrity and honesty
It is high time that Dan Porter began to employ a blue pencil before posting this kind of poison.