It’s not a skeptic site, as the false “Facts” at the bottom attest. He appears to do his research on Wikipedia too, which fits somehow.
As far as not being a skeptic site, it directly addresses questions about the shroud, and does not directly take the word even of authorities when there is additional evidence contrary to their assertions. This applies to McCrone, who claimed the image was paint, as well as to those pro-genuine Shroudies who tried to explain the carbon dating by the presence of biopolymers. That by definition is skeptical -- the skepticism in this case is directed towards facile explanations, no matter which side of the debate they come from.
As for Wikipedia, why did you claim this author was doing his research there? The article on the Shroud within Wikipedia gives footnotes and cites, including direct links to skeptics as well as to peer-reviewed journals such as Nature.
BTW, is there any particular reason this image has to be that of Jesus, instead of some other person crucified under Roman authority?
If it were just some anonymous image I think a lot of the urgency and, well, irritation exhibited by both sides of this dispute would go away.
Cheers!
ad hominem is not a logically valid form of argument.