Might it be said, then, that this artifact is a mummy, not a statue?
This is overstated. They already knew there was a mummy inside before it was scanned. Itâs still pretty cool, but itâs not like it was a huge surprise.
Where, exactly? Which statement? Who claimed it was a surprise?
So you can take it with you!
Pfft thatâs not Liuquan. It looks nothing like him. Itâs obviously some other guy.
Boingboingâs description doesnât out and say it but it gives the impression that this is a new discovery: âA CT scan of a 1,000-year-old statue of Chinese Buddhist master master Liuquan revealed the mummy inside.â (emphasis mine)
Other âsourcesâ are reporting this more hyperbolically, e.g. âScientists shocked after CT scan of 1,000-year-old Buddha statue reveal mummified remains of meditating monkâ
Oh, so âother sourcesâ plus the parts you imagined⊠are the responsibility of a third party?
Hope that works out for you.
You get really, really belligerent when anyone says anything that could be remotely interpreted as critical of a BoingBoing post. Whatâs up with that?
@pimlottc isnât making this up. The link I saw from friends sharing on Facebook was titled âCT Scan of 1,000-Year-Old Buddha Statue Reveals Mummified Monk Hidden Insideâ and the first sentence, which FB excerpted, reads âWhat looks like a traditional statue of Buddha dating back to the 11th or 12th century was recently revealed to be quite a bit more.â
It wasnât until you clicked through that you could read that the info was known before. âHiddenâ and ârevealedâ suggest something that was suddenly discovered.
I canât believe they didnât lead off with, âYou wonât believeâŠâ
I think the Guinness World Records winner of hide-and-seek is now known.
Now this. Iâd buy one irregardless of how many whuffies David skimmed off the top.
I didnât!
This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.
