It’s a propaganda site attempting to beguile people, as it did you, into believing it’s something else. I said he did his research at Wikipedia because he obviously did: he quotes a long section from one of their articles. No, it doesn’t matter if it’s Jesus or not — whether it’s meant to depict Jesus or an ordinary thief, it’s a comparatively modern artwork.
It's not propaganda, as it refutes some of the commonly-recited chestnuts in favor of the Shroud. It is trying to look at the totality of the evidence and not cherry pick from either side.
Apparently you are making a compound error--
1) conflating 'skepticism' with 'materialism'
2) assuming that since 'of course' the Shroud is evidence of the Supernatural, then by definition it *must* be fake.
Maillard reactions are well known completely outside of the Shroud, as in cooking and in aging
The point being that outgassing of various organic compounds from a newly-dead body would react with the starches in the linen shroud, to colorize the fabric. Such a process would be consistent with certain aspects of the appearance of the shroud not accounted for otherwise; and would provide a more consistent mechanism then positing an unknown medieval artist who took care to fake things invisible to the naked eye, unknown to the science of his time, and inconsistent with the contemporary beliefs about crucifixion (not unique to Jesus, you know) and yet shown to be accurate later.
And all this without requiring you to give up your emotionally clung-to disbelief.
Cheers!
BS. The site accurately reports the state of current research... unlike your skeptic sites. I find Daniel Porter's various shroud sites to contain accurate and accessible reports on highly technical papers done by practicing scientists. The information is taken from peer-reviewed scientific journals. i would not be surprised to learn that Daniel Porter wrote the article in Wickipedia... and the information on Maillard reactions in the Wickipedia is accurate.... you can find it in other chemistry texts and articles.
If you want to believe McCrone and his optical microscope... and his results that no other qualified scientists have been able to duplicate... fine. I prefer to follow the peer-reviewed science.