The negative image has apparently been duplicated by an Italian chemist using non-painting methods. So just the fact that the shroud isn't painted (pigments applied to the surface as opposed to soaked in) doesn't "dispel" the original documents.
I keep saying that moderns have this odd tendency to believe that our medieval ancestors were all benighted yahoos and knew nothing about science or technology. Leonardo alone ought to dispel that idea, but there were plenty of others too.
As for the matching bloodstains, since the shroud and photographic images of it have been around for years now, it wouldn't take a genius to match up the photographs with a not "later-discovered" but "later-created" sudarium.
Bit of devil's advocacy here, but this is by no means settled and there's no point in assuming that it is.
your posts don't even reach that level. At least a ‘devil's advocate’ would do some serious research - if you did, you'd see that your postulations have been debunked long ago.
I'm not answering your latest post to convince you of anything, as your many long posts show that you are dedicated to denying even the scientific evidence. You have your reasons for wanting to convince people it's a fraud - and you are welcome to them.
I post only to, hopefully, help others not to take your word on any of what you post...but to do their own research...even it's only to watch the History channels latest documentary “Is this the Face of Jesus” - link below - which will air again on the 10th.
It really is the best one I've seen so far - and I have been following for decades -
But for anyone who hasn't studied The Shroud, this documentary is a great place to start - and then there's Barrie M. Schwortz’s web site (He was one of the original scientists of the STURP team in 1978)
History ch.
http://www.history.com/shows/the-real-face-of-jesus
Barrie's Web site - decades of research:
The pollen spores are not visible to the unaided eye. So how would an enlightened medieval forger know to add them?
Luigi Garlaschelli used acid pigments, which were rubbed on, and then later washed off. Blood stains were added later. His image would show signs of directionality from the process, it would not be on the tips of the microfibrils, and the blood stains did not inhibit the image formation, as they were added later. On the Shroud, the image is inhibited by the blood stains, because the blood came in contact with the cloth first, and foiled the subsequent image formation that most likely occurred at the moment of the Resurrection. He never submitted his experiment in any peer reviewed publication, while the STURP commission did.
The provenience of the Sudarium of Oviedo is older than the Shroud, dating to the 11th century.