OBB, you wrote: "You assume no fading over the centuries, or that only this one means of production is possible."
I make no such assumption. Amine/saccharide products will darken with age. As you are aware amine/saccharide reactions are irreversible. Over time they will darken. They cannot be bleached (and they will not fade) but can be reduced with diimide. It is, however, fair to say that the background is darkening as well and the relative contrast is thus reduced. What I was really asking you about is your fraud explanation that meets minimum criteria so we can move forward to the point of considering your fraud/miracle dichotomy. You said I am only considering one possibility. No, actually I am not. I am asking how the amine/saccharides product was produced by fraud.
As for the Sudarium carbon dating: I have heard about it anecdotally and heard that there is no validity to it. I am always suspect of a single web based source that lacks any citations. I need to do some research to get back to you on this and the web is not the place to do it. I have sent several emails and faxes to researchers to get an answer.
The question again is this. You imply fraud. If you are to be considered seriously, you must present your fraud explanation.
> Amine/saccharide products will darken with age.
Well, then, that's a problem, isn't it, considering that 650 years ago, it was apparently pretty plainly visible. I've seen contemporary paintings of it (don't ask me where, it's been a few years), when it was folded up and only the face visible... and the face was *quite* visible.
> I am asking how the amine/saccharides product was produced by fraud.
Starting to look like amine/saccharides product does not explain it.
> I am always suspect of a single web based source that lacks any citations.
Indeed. But a bit more searching found several further references, including one PDF paper:
http://www.shroud.com/heraseng.pdf "It should be said that in our investigation we have found nothing to contradict this tradition, except the carbon 14 dating ordered by Prof. Baima Bollone. According to this experiment, the cloth dates from the 7th century. Baima Bollone himself says the result should not be given undue importance, but it is the first contrary information obtained."
It *appears* that they dated it and got answers they didn't like.
> You imply fraud. If you are to be considered seriously, you must present your fraud explanation.
Simple: "An artist made it. An artist was exposed and confessed." Now, it would certainly be interesting to know exactly how it was done, but it seems pretty plain to me that it was manmade, given all the quirks and flaws and mistakes (such as the hair hanging the wrong direction; such as the head appearing to be disconnected; such as the legs being straight on the front, and the knee being bent on the back... can't be both at the same time!). Hell, we don't know just how the Great Pyramid was built, but we know it was built by Men.