With that one question, Orion, you demonstrate you have absolutely no idea of nature of proof any scientific test must meet. Just the fact that the sample is (shall I shout this in your ear? Yeah, I think I will, nothing else seems to get through.) NOT SIMILAR to the rest of the Shroud is sufficient to invalidate the entire test!
Hell, for all we know, the shroud could well be 1st century... taken from a burial, sold to an artist, who then painted on it. Given that there is no blood on the shroud but there is iron oxide and other pigments...
What a stretch!
So now your hypothesis is that some 14th century archaeologist or grave robber excavated a tomb in the Jerusalem area, found a pristine shroud, unsullied by decomposition products from the body it covered, removed it, carried it to Lirey France where he sold it to an unknown artist, who "paints" an image of Christ's crucified body on this conveniently properly aged cloth which is contrary to every previous or current artistic style, utilizing a technique never used before or since, incorporating data that cannot be decoded for at least 800 years, and including details that demonstrate he has an encyclopedic knowledge of First Century Jewish customs, Roman execution techniques, the concept of negativity, anatomy and blood chemistry, merely so he can show a "relic" to ignorant rubes who would pay just as much to see a bed sheet daubed with chicken blood.
And you have the gall to shove "Occam's Razor" at us?!
Who is your authority for your assertion that there is "no blood on it?" Joe Nickell? Joe's PhD degree is in ART, not science.