Oh baloney. The verdict of the scientific and historical community is clear, and the efforts of the fringe who gainsay it are riddled with flaws that those links illustrate.
Baloney right back at you, Springheel. You keep referring to ONE scientist who refused to have his work peer reviewed and who's work has been incapable of duplication by dozens of other scientists. Photomicrographs of the image threads and fibers, including scanning electron microscope images, are readily available on the net... and they DO NOT SHOW WHAT McCRONE SAYS HE SAW. It's that simple. That says enough. Even your enumeration of "flaws" were not submitted in the normal peer review process where scientists could examine, rebut or agree, but were instead merely published in the popular press or on the web. That is not good enough.
Go and find qualified scientists who have done Microxrayspectrometry of the samples from the Shroud and who found Vermilion and Red Ochre in any quantities significantly different between image and non-image areas. Find other scientists who actually performed immuno-assay testing and found that Egg albumin would react with Primate proteins and give false positives. Even your admired McCrone claimed that the Iron Oxide he saw only "became visible" at 2500 X magnification... and that's why other microscopists failed to see what he saw... but it's really invisible unless you are McCrone... ignoring that it would be impossible for a medieval grinder to reduce Iron Oxide to such consistently small particles - sp he then claimed it was a form of Jeweler's Rouge that was only developed after 1830... and also ignoring the scanning electron microscope work at 40,000 Magnification that failed to see the Fe2O3 that is, according to McCrone, in sufficient quantities and concentration to be seen from 20 feet away but not at 40X-400X magnification. Absurd.
You attitude is that any scientists, regardless of their qualifications and the peer reviews of their work, who find something McCrone didn't or who challenge McCrone's findings, or find something inexplicable about the shroud, are somehow biased and therefore unqualified and their results junk. Perhaps you should examine McCrone's avowed Atheism and realize that he is biased... and that his science suffered for it. His efforts to sabotage the blood investigators is proof of his bias. When dozens of well qualified scientists have attempted to find what McCrone claims, using his own described techniques, and FAILED, then his work is not reproducible, it's not science. I think that McCrone's Vermilion and Red Ochre are equivalent to Percival Lowell's canals on Mars... wishful thinking.
Why do you ignore the findings that prove the C14 samples were not homogenous with the main body of the Shroud and therefore invalid? Instead, you insist the 1988 tests were valid... with bad samples.