I found the article a little too authoritative, while flip at the same time. Kind of like people who "know" who Jack the Ripper is, and won't listen to any other explanations.
For instance, I've seen pictures of Luigi Garlaschelli, a professor of chemistry at the University of Pavia's created "Shroud." It looks like shit, it doesn't become a positive when photo negatives are taken of it, it responds much differently to X Rays than the Shroud of Turin does. It doesn't even look
like the shroud at all. He basically painted a piece of fabric. Also, just because one
bit of fabric from the same time period as Christ was found to be inferior quality weaving, it doesn't mean the Shroud wasn't real. The fabric Christ was wrapped in was donated by a very
rich man, and there were dozen of different weaves used during the Roman Period in Israel, not to mention all the imported cloth. That proves nothing. ALSO, the fact that the Shroud was in two fires over the centuries could easily have screwed up carbon dating, every single source
that refers to the Shroud mentions this fact. Carbon (burnt fabric for instance) messes with carbon dating
and makes the results innacurate. There is no way to accurately carbon date things that have been burnt.
I could go on an debunk the rest of the debunking (although I don't know much about the crystal skulls or the faces on the floor things) but I think this article is NOT the definitive word on these issues.