[orionblamblam]

> I defy him to name one reasonable explanation that can possibly explain the images as they are.

Well, how about this: "heavy amines produced by a dead body reacted with the coating, a amino-carbonyl reaction (Maillard reaction)." If this can happen naturally, it can happen artificially.

Artists have come up with a VAST number of ways to create images on canvases. Hell, some have even used their own blood as paint.

[shroudie]

orionblamblam, I'll accept that. Chemically that would work. There are several problems in how an artist would do that. We can look at those as we go along.

In an undemanding age when any sliver of wood might pass as a piece of the true cross, and any bramble as part of the crown of thorns, it is a bit hard to imagine why an artist would go to such extraordinary lengths with a clear (and very stinky) solution. But now, we are out of science, are we not?

But good. Chemically we are in agreement. We have found a way to induce a double-double bond change of molecular state in the carbohydrate layer(which is what the image is). This is well documented in a peer reviewed paper by Rogers R. N., Arnoldi A., "The Shroud of Turin: an amino-carbonyl reaction (Maillard reaction) may explain the image formation," in the scientific journal, Melanoidins vol. 4, Ames J.M. ed., Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, Luxembourg, 2003, pp.106-113.

I wonder why he did it as a negative image.

Shroudie