Your guest contributor, Yannick Clément, stated that a section of Rogers’ newly published paper is
so important in fact that it can be use to completely discredit the main “anti-impurity” argument that we can found in the 2010 paper entitled “Microscopic and Macroscopic Characteristics of the Shroud of Turin Image Superficiality” that was written by Fanti, Di Lazarro, Heimburger and some others. . . . And, to be honest, I found it quite funny that they dared to use this kind of argument in a try to discredit Rogers’ hypothesis. . . .
And yada, yada, yada.
“Quite funny”? Did Yannick actually say, “quite funny”? I am disappointed to see such a lack of professionalism by Yannick, someone I respect even as I disagree with him on so many things. I think he should of given your readers a link to the paper he so unfairly criticized. I found a link at Niels Svensson’s site, Microscopic and Macroscopic Characteristics of the Shroud of Turin Image Superficiality. I also found another reprint at Academia.edu.
I agree that a link was appropriate. The fault is mine for not looking for one before publishing Yannick’s guest posting. I’m not upset by the use of the word funny, though I might have put it differently. Thanks for the links. I do hope that everyone reads the paper, Microscopic and Macroscopic Characteristics of the Shroud of Turin Image Superficiality, by several prominent scientists who have spent years studying the shroud. I don’t think Rogers’ paper discredits anything. It does, however, advance the discussion. And that is a good thing.
Note: I reformatted the note from BT and made the links to the papers clickable.