That's assuming the shroud is what it purports to be. That certainly hasn't been established.
If one is trying to prove an existing historical object is a fraud by creating one with known technology from the period, your creation had better exactly match the existing object in all details to make your case, not ignore unique characteristics of the original and NOT just hit superficial similarities! This "reproduction" failed on all points. . . And even the superficial similarities were poor. Regardless of "what it purports to be" the "reproduction" did not prove anything about the original because it DID NOT MATCH IN ANY PARTICULAR THE ORIGINAL, because the "scientist chose to ignore anything that did not fit his copy!! He ignored ALL the prior peer reviewed science that showed what the image is composed of in favor of a residue based pigment model... he ignored the Micro-xrayspectrometry and Micromassspectrometry studies that measured even the residue left even from the vinyl sample collection baggies the threads were placed in that found NO PIGMENT on the shroud and more, no significant elemental variation between image and non-image areas of the Shroud, except in the blood stains,
It's like claiming a photographic copy of the Mona Lisa, that really looks like Da Vinci's original, PROVES the original is a fake because the copy looks like the original! Let's ignore the fact the photo isn't an oil painting, isn't painted on a wooden panel, and has no texture... But from thirty feet away they both look the same, so the original MUST have been a fraud made by photography! See the problem?