Marcel Alonso wrote this email to the members of the Shroud Science Group. I was interested in what he had to say and asked him for permission to reprint it:
Dear Researchers,
I have read (ZENIT.org – May 18, Conferences at the pontifical University Regina Apostolorum of Rome) that "the scientist Paolo Di Lazzaro, doctor in physics and researcher at Research center ENEA of Frascati (Rome), claimed that the image of the shroud of Turin “was not explained yet in scientific terms”. He recalled that the “scientific method is based on the reproduction of the phenomenon, and that it is only from there that it is possible to know the nature and the origin of the phenomenon”. To date, he raised, “nobody was able of reproduced the image of the Saint-Shroud in all his chemical and physical characteristics, despite all efforts in this direction and various attempts of periodically announced copies”. After years of investigations, experiments, errors of evaluation, and on the basis of obtained results, it is impossible, according to the expert “to draw sure and final conclusions on the origin of the image of the Saint-Suaire”.
I take this opportunity to address some evidences: In Science, it is well known that it is not possible to match, with a new experiment (artificial), ALL the characteristics of a previous
one (natural). What is only possible is to simulate it, as close as possible, for a given class of characteristics, specially chosen. For example, we are able to match all the physico-chemical
characteristics of the ordinary salt (NaCl) by mixing artificially HONa and HCl. But if this "salt" has been cropped in a natural environment, with its local phenomenology, it composition will
differ, more or less, but will differ, from the theoretical product NaCl. The best that we can do is to try to reproduce the local conditions in order to match the complex composition of the "salt" considered.
Similarly, is it reasonable to expect a result by "mixing" (linen and UV) or (linen and CD) etc, with various intensities and durations? Such attitude isn’t it like that of a Chemist varying concentration and temperature of HONa and HCl, in order to obtain a product whose physico-chemical characteristics would match those of a natural salt ? What could be expected other that NaCl, a pure ersatz of the natural one ?
Further, how can we claim that the Shroud image is the result of a single phenomenon: the yellowing UV, CD, Lasers, radioactive elements, etc? Is it reasonable to expect to match all the characteristics observed by the various researchers with one experiment alone? Have we forgotten that the image on the Shroud is basically the imprint left by a crucified Man on a linen cloth, after 36 hours in a cave? Not basically the imprint left by an hypothetical and undefinable earthquake!!!
Who has sacrificed a man at 3h pm, in April, shrouded him (in a specific linen), put him in a cave during 36 h, then aged the imprints in desertic conditions during centuries? Which Expert can state today that "it is impossible to draw sure and final conclusions on the origin of the image of the Saint-Shroud”. IMHO, one can say only that, after years of investigations, on the basis of the results obtained, it is impossible to say that the image of the Holy Shroud is a fake. (emphasis mine)
Concerning what relates to my findings and thinking today, I would say that there are various possible types of images (at least five which could be explained and simulated individually), but impossible to be reproduce simultaneously.
Since M. Di Lazarro and his colleague M. Fanti believe the image of the Shroud was produced by with a corona discharge or a UV burst of light during the resurrection of Christ, I want to offer you, the readers of this wonderful blog, a little personal reflection about the image of the Shroud. My reflection is focused on the widespread idea that the image on the Shroud would be due to a byproduct of the resurrection of Christ. This thought came to me recently while reading the STURP article on ultraviolet photographs of the Shroud taken by Vern Miller (Ultraviolet Fluorescence Photography of the Shroud of Turin. by V.D. Miller and S.F. Pellicori, JOURNAL OF BIOLOGICAL PHOTOGRAPHY, July 1981).
First, I want to specify an important fact and too often ignored when it comes to the image of the Shroud : In the photos in natural light as much as the pictures in ultraviolet light, there are certain body parts that are not visible. For example, we do not see the feet on the frontal image, as well as the part behind the knees on the dorsal image.
If this image was actually caused by the resurrection of Christ, it is miraculous in nature. So don’t you find it strange that God failed to “print” in is totality the image of His Son on the cloth ? If this incomplete image was really the result of the resurrection of Christ, then God would be a poor artist. Indeed, it would mean he would not have been able to finish his “work” in full ! He would have left an image of Jesus’ body with missing parts !
The incomplete image that is on the shroud, although very beautiful and very detailed, gives me much to think it is the result of one or, more likely, many complex chemical processes. Complex processes, yes, but, at the same time, NATURAL. And if that is indeed the case, it is reasonable to think that this image is that of Jesus Christ, but BEFORE the time of his resurrection ! Personally, this image talk to me about the Passion of Christ way before it talk about his resurrection, even if some “signs” (not proofs) of it can be seen on the shroud (with the eyes of faith) .
I talk about the fact that there was a body in this Shroud, but he didn’t corrupt there. Also, the fact that the blood stains on the Shroud are mostly complete without evident signs of missing parts give the impression that the body simply disappear… The great quality of those stains is really hard to scientifically explain in the context of a body with a lot of blood on it, who would be put in a Shroud and then, many hours later, taken off the cloth. To me, this is the main SIGN (NOT PROOF) of the resurrection of Christ we can see on the Shroud ! Nobody, M. Di Lazarro, M. Fanti or anyone else, will ever be able to scientifically prove the resurrection by using the Shroud or by using anything else from the material world. In this domain, FAITH is needed.