How do you explain this?
“Leading STURP scientist Dr John Jackson further discounted the possibility that the C14 sample may have been conducted on a medieval repair fragment, on the basis that the radiographs and transmitted light images taken by STURP in 1978 clearly show that the natural colour bandings present throughout the linen of the shroud propagate in an uninterrupted fashion through the region that would later provide the sample for radiocarbon dating. This could not have been possible if the sampled area was a later addition.”
Find the DATE when Dr. Jackson "discounted" that possibility. Dr. Jackson was citing the science as it existed as of that date he spoke those words. The "patches" he was thinking of would have been sewn in patches with obvious edges, not the skillful invisibly rewoven, hand dyed to match, patch done in "French Invisible Reweaving."
You will find that he had other STURP members in agreement with him, including one Raymond N. Rogers, who decided to falsify the hypothesis with what he thought would be definitive proof. He was absolutely shocked when his test confirmed the hypothesis rather than falsifying it! He submitted his findings for peer-review and his work was confirmed, then published. Two other scientists, also intending to FALSIFY the hypothesis, independently found that their approached, not the same as Rogers' approach, ALSO confirmed the hypothesis. Two leading statisticians, also working independently, demonstrated conclusively by mathematical means that the sample itself was NOT homogenous itself from one sub-sample to another sufficient to be considered a non-compromised source material made of a single provenance dated source.
That's FIVE (5) peer-reviewed published works, anyone of which is sufficient, to any serious scientist, to falsify any date recovered from testing those samples.
As to using Wikipedia as a authoritative source, the fact have been edited in numerous times, and with hours, replaced with the falsified or mealy mouthed data.