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. It’s still pretty cool, but it’s not like it was a huge surprise.
Where, exactly? Which statement? Who claimed it was a surprise?
So you can take it with you!
He’s just meditating.
Pfft that’s not Liuquan. It looks nothing like him. It’s obviously some other guy.
Boingboing’s description doesn’t out and say it but it gives the impression that this is a new discovery: “A CT scan of a 1,000-year-old statue of Chinese Buddhist master master Liuquan revealed the mummy inside.” (emphasis mine)
Other “sources” are reporting this more hyperbolically, e.g. “Scientists shocked after CT scan of 1,000-year-old Buddha statue reveal mummified remains of meditating monk”
Oh, so ‘other sources’ 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. What’s up with that?
@pimlottc isn’t making this up. The link I saw from friends sharing on Facebook was titled “CT Scan of 1,000-Year-Old Buddha Statue Reveals Mummified Monk Hidden Inside” and the first sentence, which FB excerpted, reads “What looks like a traditional statue of Buddha dating back to the 11th or 12th century was recently revealed to be quite a bit more.”
It wasn’t until you clicked through that you could read that the info was known before. “Hidden” and “revealed” suggest something that was suddenly discovered.
I can’t believe they didn’t lead off with, “You won’t believe…”
I think the Guinness World Records winner of hide-and-seek is now known.
Now this. I’d buy one irregardless of how many whuffies David skimmed off the top.
This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.