Forum Replies Created
Wow, that is astonishing! If you read this Diane, very many thanks for the time and effort you spent in producing your detailed report. I’ll amend my original blog post to include a link to it, as it is only fair readers should see all the evidence pro and con, and I have no axe to grind in presenting only mine such as it is!
It will take a while to assimilate and consider all the facts and arguments you present. A few I think are debatable, but on the whole there’s no denying the overall conclusion that my conjecture is somewhat less likely (well perhaps a lot less so) than I fondly imagined! But in due course I’ll make a new blog post in reply.
One implied critique, namely that the comparisons between the two lots of (claimed) identities were somewhat one-sided, can be explained by the overriding need to keep the blog post as short and focused as possible! But I’ll resist the temptation to discuss other points here.
Two things are especially amazing, one how much the pre-painted carvings differ from their appearance with a new lick of paint, and the other how several blatant typos could remain when I must have read over my blog post a dozen or more times!
Also, Diane, although I quite understand if you would prefer to not to publish your email address, if I would like to reproduce in the new blog article mentioned above any of the images in your report, is there a general cathedral email address I can use to request permission?
John R Ramsden (email@example.com)