A question raised by a friend got me to wondering if a certain paper by Ray Rogers
was ever really refuted or disputed or was it simply ignored as inconvenient?
Direct comparisons between image and non-image parts of the shroud show exactly the same amounts and types of radiation damage in the two types of areas (e.g., figures 7 and 8). This suggests that the image was not produced by any mechanism that involved heat, light, or ionizing radiation.
and concludes with this sentence:
I believe that the current evidence suggests that all radiation-based hypotheses for image formation will ultimately be rejected.