Two decades later, people are still trying to prove the Shroud is fake. One of the claims by proponents of authenticity is that even with modern technology, no one has been able to reproduce the images. Skeptics saw that as a challenge. Many attempts were made to show how a forger might have created the image. It was, some said for awhile, a fairly conventional painting. But when that was proved wrong, other explanations were sought. Emily Craig, a forensic anthropologist, argued that it was a portrait in pigment dust that was transferred to a piece of cloth by rubbing. No, said others, it was a medieval photograph, perhaps made by Leonardo da Vinci. A room-size camera was created to show that such a device might have been invented. A life-size photograph of a statue was made on cloth with this bigger than life-size camera. It was, as far as logic went, like making a printing press and printing a Bible to show that Leonardo might have invented printing. The photograph looked something like the Shroud. But looking like and being like are two very different things. The photograph was not chemically or physically like the images on the Shroud. This was not how the images on the Shroud were created. That was obvious.