Nothing has been falsified, except in the minds of pseudoscientists and their camp-followers. The "peer reviewed" papers you've produced were produced by the advocates for the authenticity of the Shroud, and refute nothing.
The Shroud is a fake, has been proven to be a fake, and was indeed denounced as a fake when it first appeared. Contrary to the silly claims made by STURP and its adherents, there is nothing special about the Shroud forgery. It could easily have been produced by ordinary means available at the time it was forged (sometime around 1360.)
It is obvious you are a skeptics skeptic. Nothing will touch your iron clad mind. . . if there is a mind inside that lead thick skull. If it could be easily have been produced by ordinary means available at the time in 1360? OK, How? You've proposed other trash theories before . . . and they are all easily shot down. Because YOU can't tell us how it is "so easily done" because you don't know. YOU just make trash claims without knowing a thing.
You will not accept anything I provide as a peer reviewed journal or any of work of the scientists I present because you dismiss any of them as pseudoscientists no matter what work on the Shroud they do IN THEIR FIELDS, because they worked on the Shroud is for you evidence of their pseudoscientific bent. That is your insanity, you will not accept any one who disagrees with your position. . . and have to denigrate them by denying them their expertise. AND you elevate those who do agree with you far beyond any expertise they can possibly claim merely because they do agree with you.
Just like the last claim you made about none of those citations being from peer reviewed journals. I just needed ONE to shoot your lie down. So I proved one was from a fully qualified peer-reviewed scientific peer reviewed journal, and you are proved a liar, like most of the skeptical "scientists" who make claims like yours that the Shroud can easily be created by techniques available in 1360. I am not going to do any more.