Well, let's run a DNA analysis on the blood, see what we can find out about that.
That was done many years ago - first by the forensic scientist that was on the 1978 team - and he wrote a book on it - I forget the type - I'd have to look it up but I think it's AB.
I've been following this since the early '60's - Believe me, there are a lot of skeptics - the kind that would, as Thoreau said "find fault with the morning red - if they ever got up early enough. And there are a lot a atheists and dedicated groups that will do everything they can to tear it apart - even if proven. They have a vested interest in maligning the Shroud.
For every negative there are 100 positives, evidence wise. the preponderance is on the 'true' side - however, Bottom line is that is can never be proven, beyond a shadow of a doubt to be the Shroud of Jesus.
But it has been proven to be a burial shroud of the time and the place with all the points of the Biblical Crucifixion and the all the correct forensic details of a crucified man, etc etc.
Thereafter, it is up to us each to believe or not to believe. And that may be how it should be.
The blood is far too old and dehydrated for DNA analysis to be done. However, some of the world's foremost experts on human blood—among them Dr. John Heller, Dr, Alan Adler, and Dr. Bruce Cameron, who holds a double doctorate on haemoglobin and its derivatives—have studied the blood stains and blood residues on the Shroud and have concluded that it is indeed human blood... and blood derivatives, including methaemoglobin, bilirubin, and porphyrins. What was not found was the claimed tempera paints red ochre and vermilion, that Walter McCrone claimed he found made up the blood stains on the image.
“Well, let’s run a DNA analysis on the blood, see what we can find out about that.”
That is an outstanding idea! I would love to see the blood of the shroud compared to the blood produced by Eucharistic miracles. ;-))