[SalukiLawyer]

If it is a hoax it is a very strange hoax. I don't know whether it is or not. I can see why some Christians might be invested in the issue. I am less clear on why skeptics would be so interested in debating it.

My initial web research yielded a seemingly irreconcilable jumble of findings. McCrone says that microscopy proves the image is made of red ochre, not blood. (In a trial, I would not use a microscopist to provide that sort of evidence as to bodily fluids, but a serologist, or, perhaps someone with a GCMS, which ought to resolve the paint issue.) There's either evidence of bodily fluids or not.

This rebuttal would be more valuable if we knew the provenance of the enumerated claims.

If it is a hoax, its replication would be a fascinating experiment, and ought to be an easy matter with modern technology.

[RobbyS]

If it is a hoax, its replication would be a fascinating experiment, and ought to be an easy matter with modern technology. To be convincing, the demonstration it would have to be done with medieval technology. So far as I know, the image is unique.