Italian TV on the ENEA Report

imagePaolo Di Lazzaro writes:

tomorrow 3 January at 5pm the Italian channel RAI 3 will broadcast a 12 minutes of experiments on lasers, optical illusions and coloration of textiles.

In particular, together with my ENEA Colleagues Daniele Murra and Toni Santoni we will discuss the relation between visual perception and the stains on the Shroud (following the guidelines of the paper ), and show experimentally why heating a linen cannot give a Shroud-like coloration.

The name of the program is "GEO Scienza", within the popular documentary "Geo&Geo"-

Our contribution was recorded before Christmas in the RAI studios in Rome.

All the best for the new year

17 thoughts on “Italian TV on the ENEA Report”

  1. Di Lazzaro & Murra are totally ignorant of negative optical illusions… never mind they discuss the relation between visual perception and the stains on the Shroud.
    The Shroud man image DOES prove his recently shed blood was remoistened, they just ignore it. Has they experimentally tried to fumigate a corpse wrapped in a inner shroud soaked with a watery solution and fastened/bound/tightly wrapped into (dry) linen sheets (John 19:40), they have not and just don’t care to check it. Di Lazzaro & Murra are totally ignorant of the Judean burial practice of the Second Temple period… never mind they just overlook it to formulate their misleading “scientific” thesis in the hypothesis the Shroud is Rabbi Yeshua’s…

  2. Working with his lasers, had Di Lazzaro been able to replicate both the coloration and the superficiality of the Jaspice mattress cover image (more known as the Jospice imprint), would he infer Mr. Jospice’s body emitted light and dematerialzed too?

    1. The Jospice Mattress Imprint has nothing to do with the Shroud image. See “Can the Jospice Mattress be compared to the Image on the Shroud.pdf”

      1. Louis, I am quite aware there are many dissimilarities when comparing the mattress image with that of the Shroud of Turin, thank you. I think you just missed the irony of my comment…

      2. The Jospice Mattress was made from the body of someone who died recently of a severe illness that can be linked, to some degree, with some possible biological states that Jesus suffered during his Passion. Effectively, both man could have presented a very high level of bilirubin and urea in their blood. Who knows if those components could not have been part of the image formation process in both cases ??? In the present state of our knowledge (and remember that this mattress wasn’t studied that much by experts in chemistry), I don’t think someone can state with 100% confidence that those imprints on the mattress have absolutely NOTHING to do with the Shroud images. Of course, it’s pretty evident that both images don’t present exactly the same characteristics, but we have to understand that the 2 objects that received the body imprints are very different. In this context, I don’t think nobody can be certain if there was not some chemical similarities in the processes that were at work in both cases, even if there’s good chances that those processes were not exactly the same. More researches need to be done on both objects to be sure if there’s not some connexion (here I think mostly of chemical similarities in the processes).

    1. Till the end of time I’m afraid ! :-) There will always people out there that will see God as a Mighty Magician, a Super Hero, a Tooth Fairy or something like that… Nobody can make them believe otherwise. This is called “human freedom”.

      And what about Shroud pseudo-science ??? ;-) It’s the same thing…

  3. Actually Moroni & Rinaudo’ proton radiation thesis, Scheuerman, Wangher and Fanti’s corona discharge thesis, Di Lazzaro & Murra’s UV directional radiation thesis are just “disinformative Shroud science-fiction”. They are all based on a “religious” bias. All the more so as both a specific judean burial practice of the Second Temple period (applied here to the shed innocent blood of a man sentenced to death by the Sanhedrin) and the Greek version of the Gospels are totally overlooked.

  4. Typo error: “All the more so as both THE IMPACT of a specific judean burial practice”…

  5. The catholic church has never claimed that the shroud is the one coming from the burial of Christ, they just consider it as an old image, like an old painting.

  6. Mr. Hamon seems very “passionate” about this subject judging from the unnecessary insults he thows to some serious scientists.

    Point is that the scientists working at ENEA (National Organization for the Atomic Energy) never wanted to prove that that image is Jesus’s flash of Resurrection. They started from the assumption that it is a fake and then they began investigating how can it be replicated.

    They did a research for 5 years and then concluded that they were unable to replicate it. Perhaps mr. Hamon, using his deep scientific knowledge should replicate the shroud so that this old story will be put to rest.

    1. I’m not sure that the ENEA started from the assumption that it is a fake… OH NO ! Where did you get this idea ???

  7. Just keep believing in Holy Di Lazzaro & Murra & rest in sindono-iLLogical peace, misinformation and archaeological ignorance, Mr Oysterman!

Comments are closed.