No. He went over it in the lecture. He pointed to what appear to be blood rivulets going down His forehead in the Shroud image. Why, with a guy who’s been battered as badly as Christ, would that blood stand out? His hypothesis was that it’s not blood, but matted hair. He demonstrated by blowing up a balloon and drawing a crude facsimile of the face and hair. He then deflated the balloon and everything settled in a similar way as in the Shroud image. At the end of “Passion of the Christ,” the burial shroud is collapsing as if Christ had basically passed through it and it fell in on itself. D’Muhala thinks that’s almost exactly how it happened, though I haven’t read up on the hypothesis of what kind of energy would be required to burn the image into the cloth in the first place.
Of course, as he freely admits, he can’t possibly prove that it’s the image of Christ, but he can prove that it is an image of a crucified man, it’s not a painting, and it came from the Jerusalem area.
Poor science...you can do the same with "Silly Putty". You didn't mention if he drew the image around the sides of the balloon as I suggested that god's light would probably encompass. If so, once deflated the sides would have been disproportinate to the direct frontal image. This is basic light and photography physics. But then, maybe god directed his beam at just the very front. If so, then it would all make sense and I would be wrong. I'd like to be wrong.