Is the Shroud a Forgery?

Difficulty of Counterfeiting the Shroud

Many of the features of the Shroud mentioned in this compendium would not be known to a painter or forger 500+ years before the technology to discover those features.
The knowledge of physiology was very limited at the time when a forger putatively faked the Shroud’s 3-d image and physiologically detailed blood wounds.
There simply is no sign of residue, pigments, chemicals, … in the linen. Only the discoloration of oxidized dehydrated cellulose in surface fibers of the flax threads.
Any liquid would have wicked deeper, penetrating into the fibers.
In theory, a few details could have been faked by a very knowledgeable and careful forger in the 13th century: such as the microscopic pollen and limestone dust from around Jerusalem and Constantinople. However, it seems very unlikely that a forger would have known to do all that and to actually have gone to the trouble to do so.
Would any 13th century forger even consider that such details would become detectable centuries later when microscopes were invented, and when chemical compositions could be analyzed?

Actually crucifying a victim would surely be the only way a forger could get the physiological details correct regarding the blood and serum stains.
Otherwise, simply daubbing blood on the Shroud would be tricky: if too fresh it might wick widely like on bandages on wounds but unlike on the Shroud.
Or, if the blood were too coagulated, it would not leave the marks similar to those on the Shroud. This is the opinion of a number of physicians and the result of actual experimentation.
A forger would have great difficulty registering the daubed-on blood stains with a faked image to the precision evident on the Shroud.