No, just color me unconvinced. How convincing were the Ignatius writings before half of them were later proven frauds. The scientists don't have to be the creators of fraud. Nor do their conclusions that there is blood present prove it's Christ's blood, much less how it got there and why.
Christ definitely lived, died and ascended. Of that I have no doubt. This is just one more suspicious token in a long historical line of them.
Sorry. You claimed there was no blood. There is. You declared the Shroud a "fraud" lacking information or based on misinformation. Your basis for making such a determination was flawed.
Can anyone "prove" the Shroud is that of Jesus Christ? Only Jesus Himself. The preponderance of the evidence is the only thing that can indicate... but that is only a preponderance.... it is not, nor can it be, a certainty. There are "scholars" today who are undertaking to convince people that the New Testament is a "Fraud"... just read some of the nosepicking of the Jesus Project people like John Dominic Crossen who have arrogated to themselves the task of deciding what Jesus said and didn't say as reported in the Gospels. Crossen has declared that Jesus would not have been buried and most likely his body was cast into a ditch to be eaten by carrion seekers, never mind what the Bible says. All that, they say, is just pious fiction that later editors added to make it all more mysterious.
In addition, not one of these scientists has made the scientific claim that the man on the Shroud is Jesus of Nazareth... they may come to that conclusion from the preponderance of the evidence, but not because there is a "Jesus Test" that can be applied and give conclusive, scientific evidence.