I read through that long, tedious and boring article to see that this man made a forgery that only the gullible would consider as similar to the Shroud.
He uses panes of glass for the image that people in the 13th century couldnot have gotten. Flat glass is made using a grinding process to get a totally flat surface and was not available till the 17th century.
"Flat glass for windows was still rare during much of the 17th and 18th centuries. Small panes were made by blowing a large glob of glass, removing it from the blowing iron and then rotating the glass quickly so it would spread and flatten. Such glass had a dimple in its center, many air bubbles and a pattern of concentric circles, but it was transparent and effective in keeping out the weather. At the end of the 17th century, the French learned how to grind and polish cast glass to produce plate glass, but only the rich could afford it."
http://www.glasslinks.com/newsinfo/histppg.htm
So to suggest that a huge pain of glass big enough for the Shroud was used to forge the image is absurd from a logistical standpoint alone - that amount of flat window glass was not available to make such an image.
And why go to such lengths to make a forgery that would fool people 7 centuries later? What possible gain would a forgerer have for going to such elaborate detail, getting a peice of linen from Palestine, for crying out loud! The author and most of these critics seem to think that the forgerers goal wasnt to cahs in at the time he would have made it but to fool us today, lol!
And it doesnt work anyway in imitating the Shrouds composition of color. Look at any close up photos of the discoloration fo the threads and it is plain to even the most casual observer that the image was made directly and not by fading everything else around it as the 'pixels' are very sharp edged and rectangular in their shape and barely penetrate into the fibers.
This is not to mention the chemical analysis done earlier this year that dates the Shroud to way before the 13th century and to at least the third century AD, IIRC.
It is amazing to see to what leaps of fantasy and elaborate processes the skeptical dive into in order to convince themselves that the Shroud is faked, when any amount of common sense should tell them otherwise.
Not that precisely. The late Dr. Raymond N. Rogers postulates that the shroud is from 1300 to as much as 3000 years old, depending on the ambient temperatures in may have encountered during its existence. He bases this on the fact that the shroud shows no traces of Vanillin in the linen which degrades and disappears over time. The only area of the Shroud that DOES show Vanillin is the medieval patch invisibly rewoven into the shroud... at the area tested by the C14 labs in 1988.
What about some kind of opaque material painted on a fine translucent cloth such as silk, used as the mask? It would not have to be glass. Just a hypothetical.