Not only that, but Isaiah says that the hair from his face was plucked, or beaten off. I believe that is confirmed in the NT somewhere - I would have to check on that.
People are going to believe in the shroud no matter how much it is debunked. And they will defend it until such time that He opens their eyes. It is human nature that people will "worship" a graven image, (whether it is actually carved or not - check out the usages and symbolism of how the word is used) or look for "miracles" instead of just trusting in the Risen Lord and His finished work. He even said so besides all the times that it is taught in the OT by example, etc.
I knew a microscopist who was the very top of his field who was asked to examine it and he found without a doubt that it was a fake - they weren't blood stains, but an iron compound, I think. But he was more or less threatened if he ever published his result. That was about 30 yrs ago.
But the bottom line - who cares? It makes no difference. I did find it a little amusing that the picture they show doesn't look very Jewish. :)
Walter C. McCrone DID publish but his work has failed the test of peer review. Not ONE other scientist other than those working for McCrone has every been able to duplicate his findings... in fact, many of his findings have been completely disproved by much more comprehensive tests done by people much more expert in their fields. NO ONE ELSE has found Iron Oxide on the Shroud in sufficient amounts to form an image. McCrone's claim that it was PAINTED using a dilute tempera solution is ludicrous considering what we now know of the image. McCrone even claimed to know the exact dilution of the paint... something that is totally unknowable merely from observing a dried result.
McCrone was not "threatened"... he was told that his papers had to undergo peer review, which he agreed to before being allowed access to the samples... he refused. The only place that McCrone's work was published was in The Microscopist, published and editied by Wanter C. McCrone.