Here’s what you posted:
Athetotheist wrote: ↑Wed Feb 08, 2023 8:29 pm Don’t know how many of you are old enough to remember this but you may want to take a look, paying particular attention to 13:48-17:00.
I assume you are referring to the “bas-relief” technique by Joe Nickell.
Nickell and others contend the Shroud is a 14th-century painting on linen, suggested through the 1988 radiocarbon dating. One of Nickell’s many objections to the Shroud’s authenticity is the proportions of the figure’s face and body. Both are consistent with the proportions used by Gothic artists of the period and are not those of an actual person.[38] Experts on both sides of the controversy have tried to duplicate the Shroud using medieval and modern methods. Claimants to the Shroud’s authenticity believe the image could have been produced at the moment of resurrection by radiation, electrical discharge, or ultraviolet radiation; Nickell created a credible shroud using the bas relief method and contends that forgers had equivalent materials available during the 14th century.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Nickell
If he used paint in his bas-relief, there is no evidence of paint used to form the image. If he used a scorch technique, then it would fluoresce under ultraviolet light imaging, but this is not detected on the shroud except for the 1532 burn marks and the poker holes. Also, by pressing the cloth onto a statue, when it is pulled off and pressed flat, it would have major distortions, which we do not see on the shroud. Though it might have a photo-negative effect, it would not have 3-D encoding. Also doubtful his image is only on the top few fibrils of the cloth. Further, he failed to even try to simulate the blood stains. These are just a few of the problems that come to mind with his claim.
https://debatingchristianity.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=1113694#p1113694