When one digs deep enough to find what source documents there are in that regard (as opposed to discussions and assertions based upon those) it is still far less than convincing, for each 'study' has serious problems, many of which have been identified to then later be overwhelmed with reams of wordy smoke-screen which obscure & mislead enough that the writers can then "pronounce" a this or a that as if something has been actually established.
would kick off skeptics whom they could not control, or else neutralize expression of skepticism.
Get with the program, or else the Vatican would see to it that further access would be blocked (for any particular individual) sort of like how more recently mr. Bergoglio and his close advisers would see to it that skeptics of anthropologically-driven 'climate change' were excluded from providing "scientific" input.
Details. the debils in 'em.
Well, eventually it’s no longer a matter of process, but substance.
Should the scientific team have to tolerate a “skeptic” who ignores the evidence that the team has gathered, because he is PHILOSOPHICALLY committed to denying the reality of that evidence? Especially if he is noisily obnoxious about it.
Since the Shroud research has always been published, the public can decide.
That’s an entirely different matter from the exclusion, by thugs, of “climate skeptics” from Vatican meetings. The Vatican isn’t conducting any “research” or publishing any scientific findings. They are just conducting propaganda rallies.