No digital dog, now you're not being fair as to what you said. Let me refresh your memory:
Guilty as charged! I wasn't clear and again, I was NOT directly this comment towards Roger but instead Ken who does say (in a Quote I posted), he invented some color chip, the internet and mixed I did up the sources.
I've have nothing "against" Roger, I haven't studied his work. I have studied Ken's, its bogus.
Also, your articles are not peer reviewed scientific journals, which require vastly more rigor than trade magazines:
That may be true (well they are reviewed and by peers, some of the magazines have and use technical editors) but to dismiss this outright and on the other hand, say that any and all peer reviewed articles hold water isn't going to wash with many (there are plenty of peer reviews that said climate change was bogus). Now more peers may jump on one or the other bandwagon, especially as time goes on and more "science" is on covered, but that doesn't make a peer reviewed piece necessarily the word of god, or for that matter, agreeable to all scientists let alone readers. I would agree it has more weight than non peer reviewed pieces however. The question becomes, who are the peers.
We've seen studies after studies of so called peer reviews from drug companies that claim their drugs are safe and effective. We all know how well these reviews end up in terms of accuracy.
I'm sure I can find peer review articles that state intelligent design not evolution is the scientifically sound, just as I could probably find peer reviewed articles, of various dates that say film can out resolve digital.
As for Roger, I apologize by mixing him up with Ken in terms of the scientist (although again, Ken seems to claim some such fame).