See post # 20
Please don't edit my sentences in a way which changes the meaning of them. Here is what I wrote:
Unfortunately, all we get is Eiseman's doubts and nothing additional which could raise our suspicions about the people reporting this discovery.
Post #20 adds nothing to address my FULL STATEMENT.
My point is that Eisenman rasies doubts, but doesn't give us a motive for why these people would perpetuate the "hoax." He also doesn't share information which reflects positively on those who have inspected the item and who own the item. By ignoring this, he's not addressing the whole scope of a supposed "hoax."
My experience reading Shanks and the scholars he works with has shown them to be intellectually honest and thorough. An article which implies they are perpetuating a "hoax" but does not directly share balancing information about them is lacking.
Nevertheless, the bias of the writer doesn't automatically discredit his claims, which should be honestly reviewed. But I think it fair I turn a critical eye to his article just as he turns his on Shanks' article.