All,
How can a positive report that makes its way to most major news outlets across the world be a bad thing? It is a great thing! What did they prove? That one can achieve both the coloration and the extreme superficiality of the Shroud image using UV lasers. It doesn’t prove that the image is the result of light or radiation. It does however prove that a certain kind of light, ie, UV laser, can indeed create the same effect as what we see on the Shroud. Did they replicate the entire Shroud? No. Do we know if that is possible using this means? No. But it at least shows us that light indeed can account for some of what we see on the Shroud. That is a significant finding! I have always left the aspect of the Shroud being the result of light from the resurrection as an area of conjecture and personal opinion. And it probably still is, however the ENEA research gets us one step closer to scientific plausibility. And that is a great Christmas present. Thank you Paolo and others who were involved in conducting and publishing this research.
Russ Breault
“the ENEA research gets us one step closer to scientific plausibility“. How true! IT IS a “significant finding“ and one that should not be taken lightly. It does not categorically prove how the image was created, but one possible way. Of course this findingéresearch must be `proved` itself, through peer review.
R
This is only true with some EXTRAPOLATION… Not scientific at all…
i choose to believe that the shroud is the real deal i hope and pray their are other many believers out there.
Quote : “How can a positive report that makes its way to most major news outlets across the world be a bad thing?” Because it tend to MAKE BELIEVE the Shroud offer some proofs of the resurrection which is TOTALLY FALSE !!! This kind of thinking (I’m not talking of ENEA here but of how some people will understand this news) is only true if someone do a great EXTRAPOLATION. This is the ONLY way to link Di Lazzaro’s experiment with the Shroud of Turin : By EXTRAPOLATION. And when you start to EXTRAPOLATE, this is not great science in my book.
Quote : “It does however prove that a certain kind of light, ie, UV laser, can indeed create the same effect as what we see on the Shroud.” Before being so sure, why can’t we just wait for some INDEPENDENT confirmation that it is really the case ???
Quote : “But it at least shows us that light indeed can account for some of what we see on the Shroud.” Here, I completely disagree with M. Breault because of the sample that was used (modern linen) that has very good chances to be at least partially different at fiber level than the linen of the Shroud.
Quote : “And it probably still is, however the ENEA research gets us one step closer to scientific plausibility.” I don’t think so, really. Or if it’s true, it’s only by EXTRAPOLATION. And I don’t think it’s a good thing to extrapolate on an experiment like that.
IT’S INCREDIBLE TO SEE HOW MANY PRO-AUTHENTICITY PEOPLE DOESN’T APPLY THE SAME HIGH STANDARD REGARDING THE VALIDITY OF THE SAMPLES USED BY DI LAZZARO AND HIS TEAM VERSUS THE VALIDITY OF THE SAMPLE THAT WAS USED TO DATE THE SHROUD IN 1988.
That says a lot about the bias some people have…
By the way… I don’t want people to see my comment below as a personal attack on Russ Breault or something of that nature. I just felt that the questions he ask in his letter deserved some answer from a different perspective than his own point of view on this topic.