>> I'm sure she's more persuasive to you, especially when you've a predetermined position on the issue. Rogers has been pushing the Shroud for years, and all it takes to prove his scientific predisposition here is a quick googling. The prominent use of 'peer reviewed' in so many rebuttals here should have tipped me off I'm in the midst of a pack of those who want it to be so, and want it so bad they are willing to overlook the experts that did the original work for a single one whose work is more than a little suspect. <<
Can you find any evidence that I have a predetermined position, other than that the fact that find her arguments persuasive? I haven't heard any rebuttals, other than you as-hominem assertion that her findings are consistent with her previous findings.
Since that is your only rebuttal is to attack Dr. Rogers' integrity, rather than her conclusions, it is worthy of note that her article was peer-reviewed. It does not prove that her conclusions are correct, and I never meant to imply that it does. But it does make it unlikely that her findings can be attributed *only* to lack of objectivity. The sources of the 1989 story made strong arguments against the authenticity of the shroud. She has made a strong rebuttal. Someone else may come along and succesfully rebut her. But before you call her a liar, you need to present to a case. Until, then, you are simply a slanderer.
In the interests of accuracy, while there ARE two doctors Rogers in the house, the one who wrote the article is Ray Rogers... the masculine member of the famly.