It is interesting that EVERY bit of data examined about the Shroud (pollen studies
, linen study, weaving techniques, post-mortem "autopsy" study, a study of the dirt around the heels, the blood type of the stains, the image itself) ALL support the notion that the Shroud is authentic. The only study that supports a medieval origin is the carbon dating, which has also been challenged
There are two interesting questions (at least) from that:
1) When there is a massive amount of factual data supporting authenticity and only one data supporting fraud, should all of the supporting data be ignored?
2) How did the supposed fraudster carry out such a detailed fraud?
Then there's the image itself. Although there have been a few (maybe one) success at creating something that looks like the image on the Shroud, there have been no successes at creating an image that matches the physical AND chemical composition
of the image. We still don't know how that was done, fraud or not.
My point is that there is still a great deal about the Shroud that is highly controversial, allowing the faithful to continue to hold to their beliefs with not requirement to be stupid or uninformed.