Seems Nathan Wilson’s experiment is caught in the ‘popular news item vortex’. Articles showing up not only in the local press, but some national attention also. Unfortunately, as his work becomes big news it also shows signs of unraveling once any hard questions are asked, or even semi-hard ones. And those questions are starting to be asked and the unraveling has begun. A couple of the problems: First, Nate's work supposed the image on the shroud was composed of a dye, most likely red ochre. The problem is red ochre is stable in sunlight, it does NOT fade. The pigment in brick is basically red ochre. A brick does not fade because red ochre does not fade. The image on the shroud is not a dye of ANY kind. That hypothesis was considered, tested, and discarded decades ago. Secondly,the state of forteenth century glass making is another obvious problem(see website).

[www.shroudstory.com]

And it doesn’t stop there. Seems Nate’s research prior to his experiment was less than adequate.
Nate’s claim is looking similar to the man who declares he knows how Michelangelo created his David, since he’s just created a replica with his chainsaw and a log. However, we know David is not made of wood, and Michelangelo predates the invention of chainsaws. Well, the shroud is not made of a dye of any kind, and glass the size needed didn’t exist for another 300 years, at least.
Mark K