Of course, you don't need tinyurl to use a link in hypertext. :)

And that's why God created http:www.tinyurl.com. :-)
Here 'tis in tiny form!
http://tinyurl.com/5xw4g

Here's the original published study by Dr. Raymond Rogers, from the current issue of "Thermochimica Acta":
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleUR...

That seems to be the point of the story Jimmy linked -- that it has now been proven that the sample was from a later patch.
True. But if the evidence presented in Not Made by Hands is true, it means that the "patch" that was tested didn't come from the Shroud itself but from another garment entirely. It means that Church officials aren't necessarily bumblers (at least on this issue), and it means that there was skullduggery on the part of some of the scientists involved (not necessarily the ones who did the actual testing).
In my opinion, the Shroud has been subjected to a lot of testing already and should not be subjected to any more testing that could possibly harm it. It was already manhandled quite a bit during its recent "restoration."

This proves nothing because Carbon dating is a hoax.

'However, my use of the word "speculating" above is not entirely accurate. There is actual evidence that the sample tested was not from the Shroud at all but from a mediaeval textile.'
That seems to be the point of the story Jimmy linked -- that it has now been proven that the sample was from a later patch.

I truly believe in the authenticity of the Holy Shroud. Yes; it would be great to share to the world the scientific proof to those who require that to believe. I don't need a scientist to confirm to me the validity. When I see the pictures of the shroud I know I'm looking at Christ.
Julie

Why not wait 50 years when they might have new technology to date the shroud without damaging it.

It is true that if a mediaeval patch from the Shroud was the one tested that it is rather embarrassing for the Church, because, after all, it was Church officials who chose the patch to be tested and not the scientists themselves. However, my use of the word "speculating" above is not entirely accurate. There is actual evidence that the sample tested was not from the Shroud at all but from a mediaeval textile.

The bungling of this invesitgation, particularly by using ecclesiastically-determined samples, has been embarassing for "our side" in this matter for some time now. Each time a "test-was-flawed" announcement has to be made, however accurate that might be, the purpose of the test (to demonstrate objectively the age) becomes harder to accomplish. There's only way to salvage this mess now. Let science choose the selection. Consider, if a growth in the lung is suspected of being cancererous, we do a biopsy, right? But it's a biopsy of the growth (duh.) We don't say, "Oh, no, the lung is too important! Do your biopsy if you want, but take the sample from the man's toe." If we want to know how old the image on the cloth is, the sample has to be taken from a portion of the cloth that has an image on it. Nothing less will answer what the test is designed to address. And if one does not want to damage the image (a reasonable position, given what it might be), then don't do the test, and let those who beleive, beleive, and those who don't, not.

Br. Thomas Mary Sennott, MICM, in his book Not Made by Hands, cites a Shroud scholar as speculating that the sample that was tested in 1988 wasn't even from the Shroud but from a mediaeval humeral veil with a similar weave.