Lavoie describes some good research he did regarding the blood marks on the Turin shroud. He demonstrates that the blood present is that of blood which has dried for a few hours and begun to clot, providing further evidence that it is a dead person represented on the shroud. He also exhibits good research in his findings on Jewish burial customs, where he describes how victims of violent deaths were not given the ritual washing done by Jews, hence the preservation of the blood marks on the represented body. Altogether, these findings narrow the speculation aimed at the blood marks and undercut theories of a live person being represented on the shroud.
Unfortunately, Lavoie's next areas of research are poor. He goes to great lengths to attempt to demonstrate that the person represented was upright, rather than lying down. Especially poor is his use of photography in his attempt to justify his idea. The result of his use of photography is an implicit assumption that the shroud image is also a photograph in negative. Not only does he vary the angle of light for different photographs, as if the image were formed by a light in the ceiling, presumably of the tomb, he goes so far as to color a man's hair white to observe that white hair shows up black in a photographic negative. Since the image has dark hair, as would be expected for any color of hair, since the image is likely not a photograph, he quotes from the heavenly visions of Daniel and John, which describe God as having radiant white hair. This, he assumes, is a strong indicator that Jesus, i.e., God, is represented on the shroud.
Beyond those critical flaws, Lavoie fails to recognize that an upright person would have been situated in the shroud differently. Above the head on either side are blank spaces; the top of the person's head would have been there if he had been upright. Lavoie also fails to provide a theory of image formation, since traditional ideas, like vapors, do not work for an upright person. That failure might be due to his general mistake in perceiving the shroud to be a photograph, a perception he might not have realized himself as having. Furthermore, Lavoie ignores or is uninformed of extensive work done by others demonstrating that the image is that of a man lying horizontally on his back.
Lavoie then uses his theory of upright suspension, purportedly in midair, to justify a faith in Christianity over Judaism. While there are likely other reasons for his decision to follow the latter, the fact that his research provided the impetus for doing so might be seen as demonstrating his tendency to follow spurious notions rather than more legitimate ones.