'scholar':
The very fact that there were researchers- plural indicates that there are others competent to make an assessment in this matter.
"fact"? Nothing about the claim in the article indicates a "fact" about the "researchers". The 'researchers' could be Furuli (who may have had an assistant) or could just be some lads at 'Bethel' who were tasked with fudging some results to fit the Watch Tower Society's narrative.
The WT has noted this fact with the appropriate methodology employed by these other experts so no dishonesty to hand.
hahaha... š the only citation anywhere near the claim about the anonymous 'researchers' is the name of a software program, with no identification of the 'researchers', their credentials (or even evidence of basic competency), or their affiliation with Watch Tower, nor is any evidence provided that supports the findings asserted... but okay then, since you say they followed the "appropriate methodology", this must mean I missed where they cited their sources identifying the researchers... feel free to enlighten us all as to the identity of these 'researchers'... š¤£ Worst of all, the article does provide some citations (some of whom are misrepresented, including Brown, Sack and Steele), so it's not that they weren't trying to give the appearance of the "appropriate methodology". So their failure to properly cite the identity of the key "researchers" for their claims is particularly suspect.