science stunned by Mary's eyes
Alan Wostenberg
"Digital technology is giving new leads in understanding a phenomenon
that continues to puzzle science: the mysterious eyes of the image of
Virgin of Guadalupe. " article at
http://www.ewtn.com/vnews/getstory.asp?number=11273
-- Alan Wostenberg
Psalms on cellphones? http://www.psalmweaver.com
Stephen
and she has never handed out beads.
Stephen
Pope Dilbert
"Alan Wostenberg" <pw...@attbi.com> wrote in message
news:3DEBE0A6...@attbi.com...
Another "shroud" fraud!
"Though the dimensions are microscopic......"
"Tonsmann says he believes the reflection transmitted by the eyes of the
Virgin of Guadalupe is the
scene on Dec. 9, 1531, during which Juan Diego showed his tilma, "
Where did a 16th century backward native get a microscope?
"He magnified the iris of the Virgin's eyes 2,500 times and,
through mathematical and optical procedures, was able to identify all the
people imprinted in the
eyes. "
At 2500 times, any fabric looks like nothing ore than a bunch of twisted
cords.
Even silk, one of the finest fabrics, could not hold any such detail.
Hell, even at 50x the most common fabrics look like woven cables.
"The eyes reflect the witnesses of the Guadalupan miracle, the moment Juan
Diego unfurled his tilma
before the bishop, according to Tonsmann"
Since when is this simple act a miracle?
Also .. with all this "new" technology ... no one presented even the
simplest picture to show the painting.
I guess, even with those high powered microscopes they had, they still
haven't heard of the camera.
Let me guess ... "tilma" is the Spanish word for "fraud".
Pope Dilbert
"Scout Lady" <PYSETI...@spammotel.com> wrote in message
news:ashokg$qql4p$1...@ID-87237.news.dfncis.de...
>
> "Pope Dilbert" <Vat...@NYC.com> wrote in message
> news:otWG9.215521$1O2.14195@sccrnsc04...
> naturally?
I'll match my intelligence, and sense of reality, against yours any day.
But you've got to hurry and get some first.
BTW..... do you have anything of substance to add to the topic, or are you
just being your usual, ignorant bitchy, self?
Stephen
| >
| naturally?
|
|
Well he doesn't speak foreign, so what? I am so ready to believe this
'miracle' not. I hate that sort of demonic hocus pocus.
Stephen
Brian Batty
Stephen wrote:
> Oh please; begone with the hocus pocus. St. Mary...has never handed out beads.
>
>
No one ever claimed she did.
BAB
Brian Batty
Scout Lady wrote:
> "Pope Dilbert" <Vat...@NYC.com> wrote in message
> news:otWG9.215521$1O2.14195@sccrnsc04...
> >
> Do you make an effort to be this mentally deficient, or does it come
> naturally?
Oh, it reeks of effort.
BAB
Brian Batty
> "Alan Wostenberg" <pw...@attbi.com> wrote in message
> news:3DEBE0A6...@attbi.com...
> > Anybody learn further developments on this since the report last year?
> >
> > "Digital technology is giving new leads in understanding a phenomenon
> > that continues to puzzle science: the mysterious eyes of the image of
> > Virgin of Guadalupe. " article at
> > http://www.ewtn.com/vnews/getstory.asp?number=11273
> >
> I haven't heard anything more but I find it rather interesting.
Same here. I hadn't seen that article before this thread. This is one of my
favorite images of the Virgin...because of the marvelous symbolism involved and
because it's strictly of the Americas, not to mention its absolute beauty!
> I saw the
> pictures in "El Secreto de sus Ojos: Estudio de los Ojos de la Virgen de
> Guadalupe", it was in Spanish so I could only look at the pictures although
> a friend translated some points the Dr. made. To be honest, without his
> enhancing the images the only one I would be able to make out was the
> bearded man. In some cases, even with the enhancing, I still didn't see what
> everyone said they saw.
I have a wonderful book that's a bit dated now (late 1980's) on the image and it
has a small section about the eyes. But the few B&W closeups are pre-digital,
and like you, I don't quite see what is claimed to be there.
BAB
Pope Dilbert
"Brian Batty" <bba...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:3DECEC17...@verizon.net...
Your, and scout tramp's responses reek of both slander and avoidance of the
topic.
Pope Dilbert
and I have some wood splinters form the original cross. I can let you have
them ... for a price!
Brian Batty
Pope Dilbert wrote:
So you're anit-beauty and symbolism, too? Please explain.
BAB
Brian Batty
Pope Dilbert wrote:
I thought the image of Guadalupe was the topic. Should it be whatever agrees
with your views, instead?
BAB
bam
Photos can be seen here. I'm undecided - the Bishop shows up definitely, but
I also have to consider the "inkblot" factor.
http://www.queenofpeace.ca/2.htm
BAM
Luha
@ID-87237.news.dfncis.de:
>
> "Stephen" <br...@brack.net.net> wrote in message
> news:Xa3H9.249337$MGm1...@news02.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com...
> Oh brother.
>
Seems to be a favorite retort of shout's. Translated, it means, "Shit,
god didn't tell me there would be more than one rational human
questioning my bullshit."
>
> ---
> Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
> Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
> Version: 6.0.423 / Virus Database: 238 - Release Date: 11/26/02
>
>
>
Luha
>
> "Pope Dilbert" <Vat...@NYC.com> wrote in message
> news:w66H9.102973$GR5....@rwcrnsc51.ops.asp.att.net...
> Actually you made a fool of yourself in this thread Dil, no one even
> remotely implied that a microscope was used in the 16th century. You
> have avoided the topic because you don't have anything to offer but
> persecution of those who believe differently than you.
>
Dil made a good point. First, on what data is the conclusion that the
purported images in the "eyes" are of those individuals present in the
room? Why is a clown engineer telling everyone that irridescence cannot be
produced artificially which is blatantly untrue? How did scientists
establish back in the 18th century that such a picture could not be
produced artificially? The paint on Aztec ruins has lasted far longer than
this silly painting so why is it so damned incredible that the picture is
still there? Why make a big point of Richard Kuhn's opinion on an
analytical problem when he was an organic chemist? Why is it not mentioned
that it's impossible to draw the conclusions laid at the feet of infrared
imaging?
> The scientists are still baffled yet Dil here just knows that this has
> to be a fraud. You haven't even made an effort to provide an academic
> explanation for what is being discussed, just built some silly
> strawmen.
>
Actually, no scientists are baffled, shout. There are no scientists stupid
enough to waste time on this drivvel. If you think there are, find me the
grants they've been awarded. You are a lofty scientific institution so
this should be easy for you.
> One can say Dil's faith rests in his own ability to shamelessly
> mentally masturbate in public.
>
For an alternative view, read
http://ufoarea.bravepages.com/aas_guadalupe.html
Honus
news:uuq7sii...@corp.supernews.com...
>
> "Alan Wostenberg" <pw...@attbi.com> wrote in message
> news:3DEBE0A6...@attbi.com...
> > Anybody learn further developments on this since the report last year?
> >
> > "Digital technology is giving new leads in understanding a phenomenon
> > that continues to puzzle science: the mysterious eyes of the image of
> > Virgin of Guadalupe. " article at
> > http://www.ewtn.com/vnews/getstory.asp?number=11273
> >
> > -- Alan Wostenberg
> > Psalms on cellphones? http://www.psalmweaver.com
>
> Photos can be seen here.
No, images that look like faces and figures can be seen. No more. It's
called pareidolia.
http://skepdic.com/pareidol.html
My website is FULL of that stuff, from several different religions.
> I'm undecided - the Bishop shows up definitely, but
> I also have to consider the "inkblot" factor.
Good for you! I had faith. <gbg>
> http://www.queenofpeace.ca/2.htm
Mr. Wostenberg made a serious mistake when he chose the title for this
thread. And here's a link to a story about a -Catholic- scientist who says
the whole Guadalupe thing is hog-wash. And I'll bet the credibility of my
scientists approaches that of yours. <gbg>
http://www1.caller.com/ccct/state_texas_news/article/0,1641,CCCT_876_1185123
,00.html
Allow me to quote:
"But recent studies of the image are feeding centuries-old uncertainties
over its origin, says Leoncio A. Garza-Valdes, 61, who in 1999 was part of a
team that evaluated the cloth.
"The cloak of Our Lady of Guadalupe is not one painting but three paintings,
and one is signed and dated. So this is not a miraculous image; it was
created by man," Garza-Valdes was quoted as saying in Sunday's editions of
the San Antonio Express-News.
Garza-Valdes, whose conclusions were published last week in the Mexican
magazine Proceso, believes the image of the Virgin is not of supernatural
origin, and that Juan Diego is a creation of 17th-century church writings.
"We want to stop the canonization of Juan Diego," Garza-Valdes said. "The
church is making a boo-boo. I am a Catholic and a Guadalupano, but I am not
an apparitionist, and I do not believe in Juan Diego."
Garza-Valdes, a pediatrician and microbiologist, said photographs taken of
the image in the basilica vault in February 1999, using various filters that
allow the passage of ultraviolet and infrared light, revealed three
paintings, each painted over another."
That's one of the reasons that the "miraculous" paint lasted for so long.
It's just not that old.
Funny how that works, huh? I just love rational explanations.
--
Remove the backwards NOSPAM in the email address to reply to my personal
mailbox.
Visit http://home.earthlink.net/~honus1/
A collection of so-called religious miracles
including (but not limited to) Jesus in burnt
tortillas, the Virgin Mary in the barks of trees,
and the name Allah in various vegetables.
All with appropriate (or inappropriate) commentary.
Paul Duca
Luha wrote:
> "Scout Lady" <PYSETI...@spammotel.com> wrote in news:asirch$rt3vm$2
> @ID-87237.news.dfncis.de:
>
> >
> > "Stephen" <br...@brack.net.net> wrote in message
> > news:Xa3H9.249337$MGm1...@news02.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com...
> >> "Scout Lady" <PYSETI...@spammotel.com> wrote in message
> >> | > Let me guess ... "tilma" is the Spanish word for "fraud".
> >> | >
> >> | Do you make an effort to be this mentally deficient, or does it
> come
> >> | naturally?
> >> |
> >> |
> >>
> >> Well he doesn't speak foreign, so what? I am so ready to believe this
> >> 'miracle' not. I hate that sort of demonic hocus pocus.
> >>
> >> Stephen
> >>
> > Oh brother.
> >
> Seems to be a favorite retort of shout's. Translated, it means, "Shit,
> god didn't tell me there would be more than one rational human
> questioning my bullshit."
Remember, Luba....it takes very little to leave a simple
creature like Scout Lady stunned.
Paul
Pope Dilbert
>
> "Pope Dilbert" <Vat...@NYC.com> wrote in message
> get a microscope! Reading comprehension just doesn't seem to be a skill
that
> you posess.
This from the idiot who quoted Catholic sites that stated a non-Roman
Catholic could not be a godparent - and went on to say the exact opposite.
>
> > BTW..... do you have anything of substance to add to the topic, or are
you
> > just being your usual, ignorant bitchy, self?
> >
> I have. You however yelled fraud as usual without presenting a single
piece
> of rational evidence. Face it, you are nothing a pessimistic Christian
> persecuting troll.
The claimiant did not present sane, rational evidence to support that claim.
I merely pointed out that the bull shit presented, was not sane and rational
egvidence.
Once again, I do not persecute Christians - only ignorant assholes.
That's why you're such a constant target.
Pope Dilbert
"Luha" <s_du...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:iv6cnYU60Ph...@comcast.com...
> "Scout Lady" <PYSETI...@spammotel.com> wrote in news:asirch$rt3vm$2
> @ID-87237.news.dfncis.de:
>
> >
> > "Stephen" <br...@brack.net.net> wrote in message
> > news:Xa3H9.249337$MGm1...@news02.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com...
> >> "Scout Lady" <PYSETI...@spammotel.com> wrote in message
> >> | > Let me guess ... "tilma" is the Spanish word for "fraud".
> >> | >
> >> | Do you make an effort to be this mentally deficient, or does it
> come
> >> | naturally?
> >> |
> >> |
> >>
> >> Well he doesn't speak foreign, so what? I am so ready to believe this
> >> 'miracle' not. I hate that sort of demonic hocus pocus.
> >>
> >> Stephen
> >>
> > Oh brother.
> >
> Seems to be a favorite retort of shout's. Translated, it means, "Shit,
> god didn't tell me there would be more than one rational human
> questioning my bullshit."
That's #2.
"Yawn" is #1 .. and also an indication of lack of oxygen to the brain.
OldguyTeck
> @ID-87237.news.dfncis.de:
>
> >
> > "Stephen" <br...@brack.net.net> wrote in message
> > news:Xa3H9.249337$MGm1...@news02.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com...
> >> "Scout Lady" <PYSETI...@spammotel.com> wrote in message
> >> | > Let me guess ... "tilma" is the Spanish word for "fraud".
> >> | >
> >> | Do you make an effort to be this mentally deficient, or does it
> come
> >> | naturally?
> >> |
> >> |
> >>
> >> Well he doesn't speak foreign, so what? I am so ready to believe this
> >> 'miracle' not. I hate that sort of demonic hocus pocus.
> >>
> >> Stephen
> >>
> > Oh brother.
> >
> Seems to be a favorite retort of shout's. Translated, it means, "Shit,
> god didn't tell me there would be more than one rational human
> questioning my bullshit."
Oh! So now the CUSSARDS slither over into the Catholic group...?
Ed.........................(OldguyTeck)
OldguyTeck
"Pope Dilbert" <Vat...@NYC.com> wrote in message
claim to have, is nothing but a fragment of that HUGE chip on your
shoulder.........
Slander? Please elaborate..
Ed........................(Oldguyteck)
Stephen
over and it won't get up on its own. There is no 'miracle' in this statue
any more than a madonna video. Get used to it.
Stephen
Pope Dilbert
"Scout Lady" <KKJQZX...@spammotel.com> wrote in message
news:ask86g$roqgi$2...@ID-87237.news.dfncis.de...
>
> "Pope Dilbert" <Vat...@NYC.com> wrote in message
posts.
You must have something to stimulate (other than your clitoris), first.
Pope Dilbert
>
> "Pope Dilbert" <Vat...@NYC.com> wrote in message
Conceeded.
I did misread the statement, and my comment was wrong.
However, I have never been so self serving and arrogant as to make a claim
that I am infallible.
> >
> >
> > This from the idiot who quoted Catholic sites that stated a non-Roman
> > Catholic could not be a godparent - and went on to say the exact
opposite.
> >
> >
> >
> > >
> > > > BTW..... do you have anything of substance to add to the topic, or
are
> > you
> > > > just being your usual, ignorant bitchy, self?
> > > >
> > > I have. You however yelled fraud as usual without presenting a single
> > piece
> > > of rational evidence. Face it, you are nothing a pessimistic Christian
> > > persecuting troll.
> >
> > The claimiant did not present sane, rational evidence to support that
> claim.
> > I merely pointed out that the bull shit presented, was not sane and
> rational
> > egvidence.
> >
> > Once again, I do not persecute Christians - only ignorant assholes.
> > That's why you're such a constant target.
> >
> Face it, you are being called on your persecution of Christians.
What a moronic, uneducated, delusional zealot calls me on means nothing.
>You are an
> intolerant and hypocritical bigot and everyone here knows it.
No. Not "everyone" knows it.
After you post, there are oviously more people posting agaisnt your comments
than for your comments.
Not only do you have a reading comprehension problem, you can't count
either.
If you shores
> up your self esteem you are free to believe that anyone that thinks
> differently than you do is ignorant. The reality though is that you are a
> pathetic and bigoted troll. You are fooling no one but yourself.
I accept the fact that other people believe different than I.
I will even defend their right to believe differently.
I do not accept them presenitng ignorant babbling as though what they
believe (particular the outrageously insane parts) is absolute truth,
absoslute reality and something I must kowtow to.
I'm anti-ignorance, and you have earned an honored spot at the top of the
list.
Larson
"Pope Dilbert" <Vat...@NYC.com> wrote in message
>
> "Scout Lady" <KKJQZX...@spammotel.com> wrote in message
> news:ask86f$roqgi$1...@ID-87237.news.dfncis.de...
> >
native
> > get a microscope! Reading comprehension just doesn't seem to be a skill
that
> > you posess.
>
>
> Conceeded.
> I did misread the statement, and my comment was wrong.
> However, I have never been so self serving and arrogant as to make a claim
> that I am infallible.
>
have one, so you are just throwing garbage where ever you can.
<snip>
> > > Once again, I do not persecute Christians - only ignorant assholes.
> > > That's why you're such a constant target.
> > >
> > Face it, you are being called on your persecution of Christians.
>
> What a moronic, uneducated, delusional zealot calls me on means nothing.
>
Once again - your persecution of Christians is the issue here.
>
> >You are an
> > intolerant and hypocritical bigot and everyone here knows it.
>
> No. Not "everyone" knows it.
Yep... pretty much everyone knows it.
> After you post, there are oviously more people posting agaisnt your
comments
> than for your comments.
>
A few vocal mental midgets like yourself it seems.
> Not only do you have a reading comprehension problem, you can't count
either.
>
Agreement isn't in how many people respond. Usually I read her retorts to
you & Luha and find that she's hit the mark. My general lack of response to
her is simply an indication that I am conscious enough of the newsgroup to
know that I don't need to chime in a "me too" or some other unnecessary
comment in support of her claims. But your comment here draws me to
respond. So that, in your limited mental capacity, hopefully you won't
continue to delude yourself to equate number of responses to amount of
support.
>
> >If you shores > up your self esteem you are free to believe that anyone
that thinks
> > differently than you do is ignorant. The reality though is that you are
a
> > pathetic and bigoted troll. You are fooling no one but yourself.
>
> I accept the fact that other people believe different than I.
Good.
> I will even defend their right to believe differently.
Perfect.
> I do not accept them presenitng ignorant babbling as though what they
> believe (particular the outrageously insane parts) is absolute truth,
> absoslute reality and something I must kowtow to.
>
But you think we should accept you present ignorant babbling as though what
you believe (particular the outrageously insane parts) is absolute truth,
absolute reality and something we must kowtow to.
> I'm anti-ignorance, and you have earned an honored spot at the top of the
list.
>
It's good that you are anti-ignorance - look in the mirror and fight the
fight there first.
______________________________________________________________________
Posted Via Uncensored-News.Com - Still Only $9.95 - http://www.uncensored-news.com
<><><><><><><> The Worlds Uncensored News Source <><><><><><><><>
Alan Wostenberg
If there are three layers as Garza-Valdes claims, why would that in
itself rule out supernatural origins? Does he explain how the image was
made in light of Kuhn findings "the image did not have natural, animal
or mineral colorings" ?
You mentioned you have a site debunking miracles. Do you come at the
subject from the perspective of a prior belief in God so ask objectively
"maybe it's God, maybe not, let's look at the evidence". Or rather a
commitment to naturalism?
Honus wrote:
> "bam" <b...@digital.net> wrote in message
> news:uuq7sii...@corp.supernews.com...
> Mr. Wostenberg made a serious mistake when he chose the title for this
Alan Wostenberg
Scout Lady wrote:
>>Dil: For an alternative view, read
>>http://ufoarea.bravepages.com/aas_guadalupe.html
>>
> From your reference,
>
> "Dr. Fiebag founded the CE-IV-Report, a newsletter for abductees, and he
> also organizes an annual meeting called Project Exchange that allows
> abductees to network with one another. In addition to CE-IV-Report and
> Project Exchange, Dr. Fiebag has also formed an interdisciplinary
> organization of Psychiatrists, psychologists and other medical professionals
> who work to help traumatized abductees."
Shrinks for abductees?
There is a teeny tiny sliver of common ground here. Friebag agrees with
the EWTN article quoting Tonsmann the Tilma "has not been painted by
human hand." Where we see the Hand of God ufologists see the hands of
aliens, and atheists, see only fraud.
-- Alan Wostenberg
Hail, Mary! http://www.thelightofheaven.com
Stephen
| You must have something to stimulate it with, my guess is that < edit >
It's not about stimulating anyone's anything. It's about the Roman Catholic
Marian verses the Roman Catholic Christian. One tells lies saying that one
must go to St. Mary first and one will tell you the truth that Jesus is God
and the only name given to us for our salvation.
Stephen
Pope Dilbert
> Honus, I'll consider those URL's, and the source.
>
> If there are three layers as Garza-Valdes claims, why would that in
> itself rule out supernatural origins? Does he explain how the image was
> made in light of Kuhn findings "the image did not have natural, animal
> or mineral colorings" ?
According to the other statement, only UV was used.
A complete analysis looking for chemicals must be a chemical process.
>
> You mentioned you have a site debunking miracles. Do you come at the
> subject from the perspective of a prior belief in God so ask objectively
> "maybe it's God, maybe not, let's look at the evidence". Or rather a
> commitment to naturalism?
Let's at least get the investigation out of biased hands, and put it into
neutral territory.
Pope Dilbert
>
> "Pope Dilbert" <Vat...@NYC.com> wrote in message
> haven't seen anyone ever claim to be infallible in this newsgroup so what
do
> you want, a gold star?
"In this news group".
You ignore the claims of infallibility of your own cult leader?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > This from the idiot who quoted Catholic sites that stated a
non-Roman
> > > > Catholic could not be a godparent - and went on to say the exact
> > opposite.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > BTW..... do you have anything of substance to add to the topic,
or
> > are
> > > > you
> > > > > > just being your usual, ignorant bitchy, self?
> > > > > >
> > > > > I have. You however yelled fraud as usual without presenting a
> single
> > > > piece
> > > > > of rational evidence. Face it, you are nothing a pessimistic
> Christian
> > > > > persecuting troll.
> > > >
> > > > The claimiant did not present sane, rational evidence to support
that
> > > claim.
> > > > I merely pointed out that the bull shit presented, was not sane and
> > > rational
> > > > egvidence.
> > > >
> The man didn't make any claims whatsoever Dil. He simply posted about a
> topic many here find interesting. Like always you are quick to persecute
> him, after all, he is a Christian.
As always - you even lie so ineptly you are contradicted by your own words.
I commented on the claims in the story.
The post was about claims!
and you assert I have a reading comprehension problem?
The FIRST, person to person, persecution and insults were YOURS:
"Do you make an effort to be this mentally deficient, or does it
come naturally?"
Unless "Corrupted, ignorant bitch" , and "Roman Catholic" are synonymous;
you cannot possibly be the latter.
>
> > > > Once again, I do not persecute Christians - only ignorant assholes.
> > > > That's why you're such a constant target.
> > > >
> > > Face it, you are being called on your persecution of Christians.
> >
> > What a moronic, uneducated, delusional zealot calls me on means nothing.
> >
> The shoe fits Dil, deal with it or keep lying to yourself.
Babbling worn out, and deranged, cliches does not make you, your insults and
your lies any less corrupt.
>
> >
> > >You are an
> > > intolerant and hypocritical bigot and everyone here knows it.
> >
> > No. Not "everyone" knows it.
>
> Yes they do, the only people that support you here are trolls like
yourself.
> Every one of you comes here to persecute Catholics and anyone that doesn't
> buy into your mental masturbations.
Then why do I attack you, and only a few others, while leaving alone those
who honestly, and intelligently, talk about Roman Catholicism?
>
> > After you post, there are oviously more people posting agaisnt your
> comments
> > than for your comments.
> >
> Yep, the same predictable people that are here to persecute Christians
> and/or Catholics like you do. Trolls, fools and losers.
Bwahahhaaaa ........
That's 1 for .. and twenty against ... and you have the arrogance to claim
THEY are the losers?
You're still on your usual ego trip that an attack agaisnt you and your
delusional insanity is an attack against Roman Catholcism.
Does the pope know you're more sactified than he is?
>
> > Not only do you have a reading comprehension problem, you can't count
> > either.
> >
> Oh brother.
> >
> > If you shores
> > > up your self esteem you are free to believe that anyone that thinks
> > > differently than you do is ignorant. The reality though is that you
are
> a
> > > pathetic and bigoted troll. You are fooling no one but yourself.
> >
> > I accept the fact that other people believe different than I.
> > I will even defend their right to believe differently.
>
> Liar. You record here shows an intolerant bigot that persecutes those who
> believe differently.
If you'd leard how to read, and to read all, before opening your big,
drooling, mouth - you might learn to comprehend (at least a little more)
what I am saying.
>
> > I do not accept them presenitng ignorant babbling as though what they
> > believe (particular the outrageously insane parts) is absolute truth,
> > absoslute reality and something I must kowtow to.
> >
> No one has asked you to believe anything. It's not about you Dil, this is
a
> Catholic newsgroup if case you don't realize it.
This is a news group that dicusses a whole variety of topics surrounding all
of Roman Catholicism.
It is a PUBLIC site, where all who wish can enter.
It is NOT your RC private chambers!!!
>You are the outsider here,
> you are the one trolling a Catholic newsgroup.
I am talking to Roman Cathoics about their beliefs and events surrounding
the Roman Catholic religon and its actions in our society.
Obviously you aren't bright enough to know that one does NOT need to be a
Roman Catholic to bei in or make comments in this news group!
YOU DON'T OWN IT, BITCH!
You are doing so voluntarily,
> no one is making you read anything or asking you to believe anything.
There
> are other atheists here, evidently they aren't as threatened by
> Catholic/Christian beliefs as you are.
I am never threatened by people's beliefs.
I AM, (and the society I live in is) however, threatened by ignorant actions
which fanatical morons spread in that society, and USE their religon as
justification for their ignorance!
>
> > I'm anti-ignorance, and you have earned an honored spot at the top of
the
> > list.
> >
> So you say. The fact remains that you are a intolerant bigoted troll that
> purposely seeks to abuse Christians/Catholics in their own newsgroup. Do
you
> trolls other newsgroups, or is it just the Christian ones?
The fact remains, I attack ignorance.
You egomanically assume your personal ignorance has anything to do with
Roman Catholicism - and, again, an attack on you is an attack on
Catholicism.
No matter how many times you prepeat this lie, it is obvious to anyone who
can think that I am attacking you.
And, using your own posts for evidentary support, your blatant ignorance
based on nothing more than your own deranged delusions.
Pope Dilbert
>
> "Pope Dilbert" <Vat...@NYC.com> wrote in message
> any better at stimulating a woman's clitoris then you are at stimulating
> anyone's mind.
As for the clitoris, your "guess" means nothing (much like all your other
lies).
As for your mind, no matter what I send out, there is no target to hit!
Larson
"Pope Dilbert" <Vat...@NYC.com> wrote in message
> The fact remains, I attack ignorance.
As I said before - start in the mirror Dilbert.
Your very posts indicate a great deal of ignorance.
You were backed into a corner several times on the abortion debate. You're
backed into a corner here again. You have an interesting habit of
personally attacking those who back you into corners.
Just admit it. You're the arrogant one who uses "Pope Dilbert" as a name
here in the alt.religion.christian.roman-catholic newsgroup. You're the
self-righteous one who abuses Catholics and Christians because we have a
faith in God and a standard of beliefs which puts personal moral limits on
our actions. Limits that you find cumbersome.
bam
"Honus" <hon...@MAPSONearthlink.net> wrote
> Mr. Wostenberg made a serious mistake when he chose the title for this
> thread. And here's a link to a story about a -Catholic- scientist who says
> the whole Guadalupe thing is hog-wash. And I'll bet the credibility of my
> scientists approaches that of yours. <gbg>
>
>
http://www1.caller.com/ccct/state_texas_news/article/0,1641,CCCT_876_1185123
> ,00.html
>
1. The link doesn't work.
2. Infrared studies were done decades ago on the cloth - we always knew that
someone, somewhere, painted over the original in certain places. We don't
know why. But it shouldn't take a roomful of scientists to determine
whether or not the whole image was a painting. If it was a painting, it
would be covered with paint. Any artist would be able to determine this.
BAM
Honus
> The man didn't make any claims whatsoever Dil.
Then explain his thread title.
Honus
> Honus, I'll consider those URL's, and the source.
>
> If there are three layers as Garza-Valdes claims, why would that in
> itself rule out supernatural origins?
Logic and reason. Why would Mary reuse the same canvas over and over? That's
common for human artists, but I wouldn't expect it of divine ones. I believe
it's not a question of three layers but a question of three -pictures-, each
differing from the others.
> Does he explain how the image was
> made in light of Kuhn findings "the image did not have natural, animal
> or mineral colorings" ?
I'm unfamiliar with that quote, but my question to that would be "Are you
saying that the paints are formed of elements or matter unknown to man?"
Because that's sure what it sounds like. I suspect that upon further
investigation this will turn out to be a situation like the shroud, in which
"Scientist A" states that paint was found on it while Scientist B will state
that the image wasn't made by "natural, animal or mineral colorings". ;)
But just to be sure that I'm holding up my end, here's another URL for you.
http://www.csicop.org/sb/2002-06/guadalupe.html
And I'll quote a bit here:
"Actually, infrared photographs show that the hands have been modified, and
close-up photography shows that pigment has been applied to the highlight
areas of the face sufficiently heavily so as to obscure the texture of the
cloth. There is also obvious cracking and flaking of paint all along a
vertical seam, and the infrared photos reveal in the robe's fold what appear
to be sketch lines, suggesting that an artist roughed out the figure before
painting it. Portrait artist Glenn Taylor has pointed out that the part in
the Virgin's hair is off-center; that her eyes, including the irises, have
outlines, as they often do in paintings, but not in nature, and that these
outlines appear to have been done with a brush; and that much other evidence
suggests the picture was probably copied by an inexpert artist from an
expertly done original.
In fact, during a formal investigation of the cloth in 1556, it was stated
that the image was "painted yesteryear by an Indian," specifically "the
Indian painter Marcos." This was probably the Aztec painter Marcos Cipac de
Aquino who was active in Mexico at the time the Image of Guadalupe
appeared."
And:
"Recently our findings were confirmed when the Spanish-language magazine
Proceso reported the results of a secret study of the Image of Guadalupe. It
had been conducted - secretly - in 1982 by art restoration expert José Sol
Rosales. Rosales examined the cloth with a stereomicroscope and observed
that the canvas appeared to be a mixture of linen and hemp or cactus fiber.
It had been prepared with a brush coat of white primer (calcium sulfate),
and the image was then rendered in distemper (i.e., paint consisting of
pigment, water, and a binding medium). The artist used a "very limited
palette," the expert stated, consisting of black (from pine soot), white,
blue, green, various earth colors ("tierras"), reds (including carmine), and
gold. Rosales concluded that the image did not originate supernaturally but
was instead the work of an artist who used the materials and methods of the
sixteenth century (El Vaticano 2002)."
> You mentioned you have a site debunking miracles.
No I didn't. Well, in a way I suppose. I mostly just laugh at what people
see in food, clouds and the bark of trees. It's not really debunking per se,
and "miracles" in your context is too comprehensive; I'm much more
specialized. Either way, you wouldn't appreciate it. Not in the slightest.
> Do you come at the
> subject from the perspective of a prior belief in God so ask objectively
> "maybe it's God, maybe not, let's look at the evidence". Or rather a
> commitment to naturalism?
I come from the perspective of "It's just a burnt tortilla." Or "It's just a
cloud." Or "Why do the Christians see their deity, and the Muslims see
evidence of theirs? They both can't be right." Or "Why do you think that
that oil-stained "image" on the storage tank is Jesus when to some people it
looks more like Willie Nelson?"
Honus
>
> "Honus" <hon...@MAPSONearthlink.net> wrote
>
> > Mr. Wostenberg made a serious mistake when he chose the title for this
> > thread. And here's a link to a story about a -Catholic- scientist who
says
> > the whole Guadalupe thing is hog-wash. And I'll bet the credibility of
my
> > scientists approaches that of yours. <gbg>
> >
> >
>
http://www1.caller.com/ccct/state_texas_news/article/0,1641,CCCT_876_1185123
> > ,00.html
> >
>
> 1. The link doesn't work.
If you tried to click on a text-wrapped link, I'm not surprised. I'm sorry
it's so long, but that's out of my hands. Add the text ,00.html ( the
wrapped part, and include the comma) manually to the address box in your
browser after you've clicked on the link and it will work You''ll have to
reclick on it after the manual addition, of course.
I'll try something here..some browsers let you skip the http: bit. Deleting
that should give you a short enough link that you won't need to do anything
more than click on it. I'll do it for you. ;)
www1.caller.com/ccct/state_texas_news/article/0,1641,CCCT_876_1185123,00.htm
l
That should do the trick.
> 2. Infrared studies were done decades ago on the cloth - we always knew
that
> someone, somewhere, painted over the original in certain places. We don't
> know why. But it shouldn't take a roomful of scientists to determine
> whether or not the whole image was a painting. If it was a painting, it
> would be covered with paint. Any artist would be able to determine this.
And as you'll see in another post of mine on the subject, an artist (art
restoration expert José Sol Rosales) -has- determined that it's all paint.
The cloth was even primered.
bam
"Honus" <hon...@MAPSONearthlink.net> wrote
> I'll try something here..some browsers let you skip the http: bit.
Deleting
> that should give you a short enough link that you won't need to do
anything
> more than click on it. I'll do it for you. ;)
>
>
www1.caller.com/ccct/state_texas_news/article/0,1641,CCCT_876_1185123,00.htm
> l
OK, got it. If this scientist was involved in the infrared studies, can't he
produce the photos that demonstrate his case? This was 12 years ago. Let's
get the cat out of the bag (if there is one).
BAM
Alan Ferris
wrote:
Actually I see something that needs further study to find out the
truth. Rather than claiming to know the truth, I rather seek it out.
--
Alan "the Full Monty" Ferrit
()'.'.'()
( (T) )
( ) . ( )
(")_(")
eligo, ergo sum Atheist #1211
Denizen of Darkness #42
EAC(UK)#252 Ironic Torture Div.
Alan Ferris
wrote:
the problem is Alan has claimed that atheists call it forgeries rather
than accept that in truth many are trying to find the truth of the
image. Claiming it was god and a miracle is no nearer than the claims
it was done by an alien.
I always wonder why the church always seems to fear and wish to hinder
true research?
Alan Ferris
<KKJQZX...@spammotel.com> wrote:
>Anyone who can think realizes that you are silly bigoted troll with nothing
>to offer here except constant attacks on Christianity and Christians. It's
>the Christmas season, why don't you go troll the depression newsgroups for
>awhile?
Wow Cathy, do you always feed your hate?
Therion Ware
Wed, 4 Dec 2002 18:54:05 -0500, "bam" <b...@digital.net> brought the
total lines of text written about "Re: science stunned by Mary's
eyes" to 24. I decided to observe the following about them:
>
>"Honus" <hon...@MAPSONearthlink.net> wrote
>
>> Mr. Wostenberg made a serious mistake when he chose the title for this
>> thread. And here's a link to a story about a -Catholic- scientist who says
>> the whole Guadalupe thing is hog-wash. And I'll bet the credibility of my
>> scientists approaches that of yours. <gbg>
>>
>>
>http://www1.caller.com/ccct/state_texas_news/article/0,1641,CCCT_876_1185123
>> ,00.html
>>
>
>1. The link doesn't work.
Sure it does, but you have to watch for the line wrap:
>http://www1.caller.com/ccct/state_texas_news/article/0,1641,CCCT_876_1185123,00.html
Scientist contends Our Lady of Guadalupe sighting no miracle
San Antonio microbiologist says the 1531 sighting of the Virgin Mary
by Juan Diego is a man-made myth
By Associated Press
June 2, 2002
SAN ANTONIO - Two months before Pope John Paul II is scheduled to
canonize Mexico's most beloved miracle, a San Antonio scientist is
protesting the long-awaited event, saying an image of the Virgin Mary
believed to have been imprinted on a peasant's cloak is not miraculous
at all.
The olive-skinned Virgin Mary known as Our Lady of Guadalupe
reportedly appeared to an Aztec peasant in 1531 and turned millions of
polytheist Indians into Roman Catholics. Her 5 1/2-by-3 1/2 foot
image, which is said to have appeared miraculously on the cloak worn
by the peasant Juan Diego, is housed at Mexico City's Basilica of Our
Lady of Guadalupe, the world's second most popular Catholic site after
the Vatican.
In 1990, the pope beatified Juan Diego, the step before full
sainthood, and some Catholics have been hoping for centuries for
canonization, the ultimate stamp of legitimacy.
But recent studies of the image are feeding centuries-old
uncertainties over its origin, says Leoncio A. Garza-Valdes, 61, who
in 1999 was part of a team that evaluated the cloth.
"The cloak of Our Lady of Guadalupe is not one painting but three
paintings, and one is signed and dated. So this is not a miraculous
image; it was created by man," Garza-Valdes was quoted as saying in
Sunday's editions of the San Antonio Express-News.
Garza-Valdes, whose conclusions were published last week in the
Mexican magazine Proceso, believes the image of the Virgin is not of
supernatural origin, and that Juan Diego is a creation of 17th-century
church writings.
"We want to stop the canonization of Juan Diego," Garza-Valdes said.
"The church is making a boo-boo. I am a Catholic and a Guadalupano,
but I am not an apparitionist, and I do not believe in Juan Diego."
Garza-Valdes, a pediatrician and microbiologist, said photographs
taken of the image in the basilica vault in February 1999, using
various filters that allow the passage of ultraviolet and infrared
light, revealed three paintings, each painted over another.
In the earliest painting, Garza-Valdes says, the female figure was
quite different and one can see the shadowy presence of a naked baby
Jesus, reclining in the Virgin's left arm.
He believes this original image was borrowed from a well-known statue
in a basilica in Extremadura, Spain, which he recently inspected. And
he says the initials of the artist, M.A. for Marcos Aquino, a
historical figure, can be seen in the corner of the painting, next to
the date 1556.
To others, these features are so vague as to be undetectable, and
Garza-Valdes could cite no other independent observer who sees them.
>2. Infrared studies were done decades ago on the cloth - we always knew that
>someone, somewhere, painted over the original in certain places. We don't
>know why. But it shouldn't take a roomful of scientists to determine
>whether or not the whole image was a painting. If it was a painting, it
>would be covered with paint. Any artist would be able to determine this.
>
>BAM
>
--
"Do Unto Others As You Would Have Them Do Unto You."
- Attrib: Pauline Reage.
Inexpensive VHS & other video to CD/DVD conversion?
See: <http://www.Video2CD.com>. 35.00 gets your video on DVD.
There is no EAC, so delete it from the email, if you want to communicate.
Stephen
to be convinced?
Don't let your heart look to statues of St. Mary - that's demonic. A statue
is simply decorative, perhaps thought provoking but that is all. It is not
to be kneeled to, bowed to, adored, worshipped or prayed to. It's a
decoration. A dead thing save for the bacteria eating its wood.
Stephen
"Alan Ferris" <al...@removespamtheplurbus.org> wrote in message
news:eousuu4i15ss3mtht...@4ax.com...
Stephen
Stephen
Scott
"Honus" <hon...@MAPSONearthlink.net> wrote in message
news:s6zH9.5154$kz2.5...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
> bam" <b...@digital.net> wrote in message
> news:uut5d66...@corp.supernews.com...
> >
> > "Honus" <hon...@MAPSONearthlink.net> wrote
> >
> > > Mr. Wostenberg made a serious mistake when he chose the title for this
> > > thread. And here's a link to a story about a -Catholic- scientist who
> says
> > > the whole Guadalupe thing is hog-wash. And I'll bet the credibility of
> my
> > > scientists approaches that of yours. <gbg>
> > >
> > >
> >
>
http://www1.caller.com/ccct/state_texas_news/article/0,1641,CCCT_876_1185123
> > > ,00.html
> > >
> >
> > 1. The link doesn't work.
>
> If you tried to click on a text-wrapped link, I'm not surprised. I'm sorry
> it's so long, but that's out of my hands.
no, actually, it's not out of your hands.
If you have a long link and want to reduce it, use
http://www.makeashorterlink.com/
copy/past the longer link into the window and hit return.
Scott
Brian Batty
> My website is FULL of that stuff, from several different religions.
While your website is admittedly funny and entertaining, it's merely
everyday phenomena (not miracles) that are only taken seriously by readers
of such low tabloids as World Weekly News and National Enquirer. To put
silly phenomena on a par with believed miracles is pretty much equating
astrology with serious astronomy or UFO conspiracy experts with NASA
scientists.
>
> Mr. Wostenberg made a serious mistake when he chose the title for this
> thread. And here's a link to a story about a -Catholic- scientist who says
> the whole Guadalupe thing is hog-wash. And I'll bet the credibility of my
> scientists approaches that of yours. <gbg>
>
>
http://www1.caller.com/ccct/state_texas_news/article/0,1641,CCCT_876_1185123
> ,00.html
>
> Allow me to quote:
>
> "But recent studies of the image are feeding centuries-old uncertainties
> over its origin, says Leoncio A. Garza-Valdes, 61, who in 1999 was part of
a
> team that evaluated the cloth.
>
> "The cloak of Our Lady of Guadalupe is not one painting but three
paintings
This is very old hat, nothing learned here.
> Garza-Valdes, whose conclusions were published last week in the Mexican
> magazine Proceso, believes the image of the Virgin is not of supernatural
> origin, and that Juan Diego is a creation of 17th-century church writings.
So who is the person who died and was buried in the basilica's chapel in
1544? Along with his uncle Juan Bernardino who received one of the five
visions of OLO Guadalupe? Juan Diego live attached to the chapel and was
custodian of the tilma for 17 years.
>
> "We want to stop the canonization of Juan Diego," Garza-Valdes said.
Too late. He's now St. Juan Diego.
> Garza-Valdes, a pediatrician and microbiologist, said photographs taken of
> the image in the basilica vault in February 1999, using various filters
that
> allow the passage of ultraviolet and infrared light, revealed three
> paintings, each painted over another."
>
> That's one of the reasons that the "miraculous" paint lasted for so long.
> It's just not that old.
There are no secrets or great revelations here. It's actually pretty old
news. It has long been public knowledge and part of the Church's own history
of the image about its human-added embellishments and pre-scientific
attempts in thinking it needed restoration. (Ask and I'll post of list of
the known additions, some which have totally disappeared). But over time,
its the man-made additions, including gold and silver gildings, that are
fading and flaking while the original parts of the image still identify
themselves by lack of aging or deterioration.
The analyzing by infrared radiation photography of biophysicist Dr. Philip
Callahan shows different from above. There is no sketch underneath any of
the paint, which is a prerequisite for almost all paintings (more then than
now, too). The original blue and pink pigments have NOT faded, although the
later touch up work has, as I previously pointed out.
There seems to be two camps about pre-treatment of the cloth. Other studies
indicate the tilma cloth was never treated or sized.
Non-believer studies are too selective and debunk only what they THINK they
can. Let's keep this in mind:
1. No mention is made of another particular phenominon of the image - it's
light diffraction effect. This optical effect causes the face of the image
to appear white up close and olive at a distance. This same effect is found
in nature when colors change under different angles, such as on the surfaces
of bird feathers or butterfly scales.
2. Previous and much repeated expert examinations, experts particulary in
painting media, have declared the fabric's loose weave and texture both
unsuitable and unprepared for the application of paint. The fabric is so
thin and of such a loose weave that when you stand behind it, the features
of the basilica can be seen clearly as through a trellis.
3. For 116 years the image remained atop the altar exposed to the
atmosphere and various forms of devotions by believers. The faithful were
never kept from the image and were allowed physical contact with it - that's
116 years worth of people pressing objects to the image yet it remained
undamages. Also, there is not darkening, blackening, or other common effects
from the close proximity of votive candles and lights......this would have
happened even if the image was promered." Many believe this to be part of
its miraculous protection.
4. The image escaped serious injury and possible destruction on two
occassions: A) once when a goldsmith who was cleaning the frame accidently
spilled nitric acid that ran along the left side of the tilma miraculously
leaving only a faint streak. B) On November 14, 1921, when a poweful bomb
hidden under a bouquet of flowers was placed on the altar during the Calles
persecution. The metal altar crucifix directly beneath the image was twisted
in the blast and marble decorations and stained-glass windows were
shattered, yet the tilma and the protective glass remained miraculously
unharmed. The mangled cruxifix is now displayed in a case for all to see how
destructive the explosion was. Many believe these to also be part of its
miraculous protection.
5. Optimetrists that have studied the image's eyes have noted the eyes
relect light rays the same as human eyes when they are examined
optometrically.
But since the topic was also the eyes, keep in mind how cautious and
conservative the Church has been about them. The first evidence of possible
relections/images in the images eyes happened in 1929 by Alfonso Marcué
Gonzáles while examing negatives of photos. It wasn't until the conclusions
of a commission were presented to the local archbishop that the phenomenon
was even made known on December 11, 1955 (during a public radion broadcast
which happened to be the eve of the Feast of Our Lady of Guadalupe).
Scott
"Alan Ferris" <al...@removespamtheplurbus.org> wrote in message
> I always wonder why the church always seems to fear and wish to hinder
> true research?
Huh?
Scott
Stephen
babies only to destroy them in the name of science. But the vast mass of
'science' is in no way opposed by the Church .. so don't be *too* swayed by
media sensationalism.
Stephen
Stephen
Luha
>
> "Luha" <s_du...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:YNOcndC6kbL...@comcast.com...
>> "Scout Lady" <PYSETI...@spammotel.com> wrote in
>> news:asis23$rlkr6$2...@ID-87237.news.dfncis.de:
>>
>> >
>> > "Pope Dilbert" <Vat...@NYC.com> wrote in message
>> > news:w66H9.102973$GR5....@rwcrnsc51.ops.asp.att.net...
>> >>
>> >> "Brian Batty" <bba...@verizon.net> wrote in message
>> >> news:3DECEC17...@verizon.net...
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > Scout Lady wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> > > "Pope Dilbert" <Vat...@NYC.com> wrote in message
>> >> > > news:otWG9.215521$1O2.14195@sccrnsc04...
>> >> > > >
>> >> > > > "Alan Wostenberg" <pw...@attbi.com> wrote in message
>> >> > > > news:3DEBE0A6...@attbi.com...
>> >> > > > Let me guess ... "tilma" is the Spanish word for "fraud".
>> >> > > >
>> >> > > Do you make an effort to be this mentally deficient, or does
>> >> > > it come naturally?
>> >> >
>> >> > Oh, it reeks of effort.
>> >> >
>> >> > BAB
>> >>
>> >> Your, and scout tramp's responses reek of both slander and
>> >> avoidance of
>> > the
>> >> topic.
>> >>
>> > Actually you made a fool of yourself in this thread Dil, no one
>> > even remotely implied that a microscope was used in the 16th
>> > century. You have avoided the topic because you don't have anything
>> > to offer but persecution of those who believe differently than you.
>> >
>> Dil made a good point. First, on what data is the conclusion that
>> the purported images in the "eyes" are of those individuals present
>> in the room? Why is a clown engineer telling everyone that
>> irridescence cannot
> be
>> produced artificially which is blatantly untrue? How did scientists
>> establish back in the 18th century that such a picture could not be
>> produced artificially? The paint on Aztec ruins has lasted far
>> longer
> than
>> this silly painting so why is it so damned incredible that the
>> picture is still there? Why make a big point of Richard Kuhn's
>> opinion on an analytical problem when he was an organic chemist? Why
>> is it not
> mentioned
>> that it's impossible to draw the conclusions laid at the feet of
>> infrared imaging?
>>
Yo, shout! You may have missed the above questions. Please answer
them. I would love to finally have a learned discourse in science from
one as highly placed as you.
>> > The scientists are still baffled yet Dil here just knows that this
>> > has to be a fraud. You haven't even made an effort to provide an
>> > academic explanation for what is being discussed, just built some
>> > silly strawmen.
>> >
>> Actually, no scientists are baffled, shout. There are no scientists
> stupid
>> enough to waste time on this drivvel. If you think there are, find
>> me the grants they've been awarded. You are a lofty scientific
>> institution so this should be easy for you.
>>
>> > One can say Dil's faith rests in his own ability to shamelessly
>> > mentally masturbate in public.
>> >
>> For an alternative view, read
>> http://ufoarea.bravepages.com/aas_guadalupe.html
>> >
> From your reference,
>
> "Dr. Fiebag founded the CE-IV-Report, a newsletter for abductees, and
> he also organizes an annual meeting called Project Exchange that
> allows abductees to network with one another. In addition to
> CE-IV-Report and Project Exchange, Dr. Fiebag has also formed an
> interdisciplinary organization of Psychiatrists, psychologists and
> other medical professionals who work to help traumatized abductees."
>
> Site owned by UFO Area
>
> Nuff said.
>
Am I no longer in your killfile, shout? How did I earn the favor of
escaping the oblivion of your GIGO PC? Maybe I was never there. In
either case, you're still a liar.
Now, let's get to it, shall we? How is the UFO version less credible
than the version you believe? Neither camp has any hard evidence.
>
> ---
> Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
> Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
> Version: 6.0.423 / Virus Database: 238 - Release Date: 11/25/02
>
>
>
Luha
news:3dee2460$1...@news4.uncensored-news.com:
>
> "Pope Dilbert" <Vat...@NYC.com> wrote in message
> news:vopH9.231051$QZ.36285@sccrnsc02...
>>
>> "Scout Lady" <KKJQZX...@spammotel.com> wrote in message
>> news:ask86f$roqgi$1...@ID-87237.news.dfncis.de...
>> >
>> > LOL, you are the fool that asked where did a 16th century backward
> native
>> > get a microscope! Reading comprehension just doesn't seem to be a
>> > skill
> that
>> > you posess.
>>
>>
>> Conceeded.
>> I did misread the statement, and my comment was wrong.
>> However, I have never been so self serving and arrogant as to make a
>> claim that I am infallible.
>>
> Neither did Scout Lady. I'd ask what your point is, but clearly you
> don't have one, so you are just throwing garbage where ever you can.
>
> <snip>
>> > > Once again, I do not persecute Christians - only ignorant
>> > > assholes. That's why you're such a constant target.
>> > >
>> > Face it, you are being called on your persecution of Christians.
>>
>> What a moronic, uneducated, delusional zealot calls me on means
>> nothing.
>>
> Once again - your persecution of Christians is the issue here.
>
Gee, I thought the issue here is a fabricated story about a fabricated
relic. All of a sudden, the deadheads know when their point is bogus
and want to start an ad hominem attack on one of the debunkers.
>>
>> >You are an
>> > intolerant and hypocritical bigot and everyone here knows it.
>>
>> No. Not "everyone" knows it.
> Yep... pretty much everyone knows it.
>
I don't know it. The original post attacked common sense and
scientists. Are you against either one fo those, larson?
>> After you post, there are oviously more people posting agaisnt your
> comments
>> than for your comments.
>>
> A few vocal mental midgets like yourself it seems.
>
Touche'! Do people use "nit" when describing your wit?
>> Not only do you have a reading comprehension problem, you can't count
> either.
>>
> Agreement isn't in how many people respond. Usually I read her
> retorts to you & Luha and find that she's hit the mark.
That's because your ken is as limited as hers. Nothing to be proud of,
larson. Maybe a GED would help you out.
My general
> lack of response to her is simply an indication that I am conscious
> enough of the newsgroup to know that I don't need to chime in a "me
> too" or some other unnecessary comment in support of her claims. But
> your comment here draws me to respond. So that, in your limited
> mental capacity, hopefully you won't continue to delude yourself to
> equate number of responses to amount of support.
>
Why not? You seem to put some value in it, hypocrite.
>>
>> >If you shores > up your self esteem you are free to believe that
>> >anyone
> that thinks
>> > differently than you do is ignorant. The reality though is that you
>> > are
> a
>> > pathetic and bigoted troll. You are fooling no one but yourself.
>>
>> I accept the fact that other people believe different than I.
> Good.
>
Give it a try, larson.
>> I will even defend their right to believe differently.
> Perfect.
>
>> I do not accept them presenitng ignorant babbling as though what they
>> believe (particular the outrageously insane parts) is absolute truth,
>> absoslute reality and something I must kowtow to.
>>
> But you think we should accept you present ignorant babbling as though
> what you believe (particular the outrageously insane parts) is
> absolute truth, absolute reality and something we must kowtow to.
>
What we expect is that those who post inaccuracies and superstition as
fact answer the questions we ask. Is that too much to ask of those who
would have us change our lives to fit their whims?
>
>> I'm anti-ignorance, and you have earned an honored spot at the top of
>> the
> list.
>>
> It's good that you are anti-ignorance - look in the mirror and fight
> the fight there first.
>
So, larson-the-learned, maybe you'd like to give my questions about the
story a shot. I'm ready for your explanation. Shout chickened out
again.
Luha
>
> "Pope Dilbert" <Vat...@NYC.com> wrote in message
> news:vopH9.231051$QZ.36285@sccrnsc02...
>>
>> "Scout Lady" <KKJQZX...@spammotel.com> wrote in message
>> news:ask86f$roqgi$1...@ID-87237.news.dfncis.de...
>> >
>> > "Pope Dilbert" <Vat...@NYC.com> wrote in message
>> > news:h7hH9.230199$1O2.15080@sccrnsc04...
>> > >
>> > > "Scout Lady" <PYSETI...@spammotel.com> wrote in message
>> > > news:asircg$rt3vm$1...@ID-87237.news.dfncis.de...
>> > > >
>> > > > "Pope Dilbert" <Vat...@NYC.com> wrote in message
>> > > > news:oM%G9.218836$%m4.7...@rwcrnsc52.ops.asp.att.net...
>> > > > >
>> > > > > "Scout Lady" <PYSETI...@spammotel.com> wrote in message
>> > > > > news:ashokg$qql4p$1...@ID-87237.news.dfncis.de...
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > "Pope Dilbert" <Vat...@NYC.com> wrote in message
>> > > > > > news:otWG9.215521$1O2.14195@sccrnsc04...
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > "Alan Wostenberg" <pw...@attbi.com> wrote in message
>> > > > > > > news:3DEBE0A6...@attbi.com...
[snip]
>> > > > >
>> > > > LOL, you are the fool that asked where did a 16th century
>> > > > backward
>> > native
>> > > > get a microscope! Reading comprehension just doesn't seem to be
>> > > > a
>> skill
>> > > that
>> > > > you posess.
>>
>>
>> Conceeded.
>> I did misread the statement, and my comment was wrong.
>> However, I have never been so self serving and arrogant as to make a
>> claim that I am infallible.
>>
>>
> Well your choice of handle sure gives that impression. Nevertheless, I
> haven't seen anyone ever claim to be infallible in this newsgroup so
> what do you want, a gold star?
Let's go into that, shall we? In what way does the Pope Dil's usenet
name make a claim for infallibility? Is there a human on earth that
foolish, shout?
I was just asking questions about the (pseudo)science the article
contained. What a pity you didn't choose to respond, shout, you being
so knowledgeable. I guess I am just mired in my ignorance about this
kinda stuff. Do you get many converts by feeding them fables and
ignoring the obvious questions?
I can make you and LuLu
> dance merely by posting a prolife article or anything Christian.
Actually, I leave most religious bullshit alone as it's merely opinion-
with-warts and everyone is entitled to theirs. If you haven't noticed,
it's pseudoscience I find irritating. You are a major purveyor of this
crap and justify it by claiming to fuck doctors. I am happy to see that
you've cut back on this stuff in favor of posting stupid stuff about
relics. That's much better but don't sully science with it.
You
> both are so predictable.....and we actually plan it just to laugh at
> you fools.
>
Not that I believe that for a second as you've truly been brought to
your logical knees in some threads. However, let's say that is so.
What does that say about your brand of christianity? Exactly.
>> > > Once again, I do not persecute Christians - only ignorant
>> > > assholes. That's why you're such a constant target.
>> > >
>> > Face it, you are being called on your persecution of Christians.
>>
>> What a moronic, uneducated, delusional zealot calls me on means
>> nothing.
>>
> The shoe fits Dil, deal with it or keep lying to yourself.
>
Beats him lying to us, shout. You try it.
>>
>> >You are an
>> > intolerant and hypocritical bigot and everyone here knows it.
>>
>> No. Not "everyone" knows it.
>
> Yes they do, the only people that support you here are trolls like
> yourself. Every one of you comes here to persecute Catholics and
> anyone that doesn't buy into your mental masturbations.
>
I'm here to defend science and human rights. Sorry if that's not on
your agenda, shout.
>> After you post, there are oviously more people posting agaisnt your
> comments
>> than for your comments.
>>
> Yep, the same predictable people that are here to persecute Christians
> and/or Catholics like you do. Trolls, fools and losers.
>
There we have it. Anyone who does not agree with shout lady is a troll,
fool or loser. Did I get your right, shout? This says much about you.
>> Not only do you have a reading comprehension problem, you can't count
>> either.
>>
> Oh brother.
Dear reader, please see translation of this shoutism in an earlier post.
>>
>> If you shores
>> > up your self esteem you are free to believe that anyone that thinks
>> > differently than you do is ignorant. The reality though is that you
>> > are
> a
>> > pathetic and bigoted troll. You are fooling no one but yourself.
>>
>> I accept the fact that other people believe different than I.
>> I will even defend their right to believe differently.
>
> Liar. You record here shows an intolerant bigot that persecutes those
> who believe differently.
>
Here's the pot calling the kettle black!
>> I do not accept them presenitng ignorant babbling as though what they
>> believe (particular the outrageously insane parts) is absolute truth,
>> absoslute reality and something I must kowtow to.
>>
> No one has asked you to believe anything.
No? Then what is all your proselytizing about, shout?
It's not about you Dil, this
> is a Catholic newsgroup if case you don't realize it. You are the
> outsider here, you are the one trolling a Catholic newsgroup. You are
> doing so voluntarily, no one is making you read anything or asking you
> to believe anything. There are other atheists here, evidently they
> aren't as threatened by Catholic/Christian beliefs as you are.
>
We are all threatened by anyone who believes the bullshit you do, shout.
>> I'm anti-ignorance, and you have earned an honored spot at the top of
>> the list.
>>
> So you say. The fact remains that you are a intolerant bigoted troll
> that purposely seeks to abuse Christians/Catholics in their own
> newsgroup. Do you trolls other newsgroups, or is it just the Christian
> ones?
>
Shout, honey, this is usenet. Just because you've named your group
after something don't mean the rest of us can't offer opinons. Maybe
you'd be happier as a moslem in Iran where others can be forced to
believe in certain ways. You may not want to because most people
mistake you for a woman but I suspect those people won't.
Luha
> Honus, I'll consider those URL's, and the source.
>
> If there are three layers as Garza-Valdes claims, why would that in
> itself rule out supernatural origins?
With one of the signed? Didn't you read his entire response? Then
again, he didn't say whether or not the signature was "god"! Does your
god paint in pentimento?
Does he explain how the image
> was made in light of Kuhn findings "the image did not have natural,
> animal or mineral colorings" ?
>
It would be really nice if you had a link or reference to this
publication of Kuhn's. My guess is that it does not exist.
> You mentioned you have a site debunking miracles.
That is wrong. It debunks so-called miracles. There are no miracles
involved here.
Do you come at the
> subject from the perspective of a prior belief in God so ask
> objectively "maybe it's God, maybe not, let's look at the evidence".
> Or rather a commitment to naturalism?
>
If the shoe fits,... What would be the difference?
>
>
> Honus wrote:
>> "bam" <b...@digital.net> wrote in message
>> news:uuq7sii...@corp.supernews.com...
>
>> Mr. Wostenberg made a serious mistake when he chose the title for
>> this thread. And here's a link to a story about a -Catholic-
>> scientist who says the whole Guadalupe thing is hog-wash. And I'll
>> bet the credibility of my scientists approaches that of yours. <gbg>
>>
>> http://www1.caller.com/ccct/state_texas_news/article/0,1641,CCCT_876_
1
>> 185123 ,00.html
>>
>> Allow me to quote:
>>
>> "But recent studies of the image are feeding centuries-old
>> uncertainties over its origin, says Leoncio A. Garza-Valdes, 61, who
>> in 1999 was part of a team that evaluated the cloth.
>>
>> "The cloak of Our Lady of Guadalupe is not one painting but three
>> paintings, and one is signed and dated. So this is not a miraculous
>> image; it was created by man," Garza-Valdes was quoted as saying in
>> Sunday's editions of the San Antonio Express-News.
>>
>> Garza-Valdes, whose conclusions were published last week in the
>> Mexican magazine Proceso, believes the image of the Virgin is not of
>> supernatural origin, and that Juan Diego is a creation of
>> 17th-century church writings.
>>
>> "We want to stop the canonization of Juan Diego," Garza-Valdes said.
>> "The church is making a boo-boo. I am a Catholic and a Guadalupano,
>> but I am not an apparitionist, and I do not believe in Juan Diego."
>>
>> Garza-Valdes, a pediatrician and microbiologist, said photographs
>> taken of the image in the basilica vault in February 1999, using
>> various filters that allow the passage of ultraviolet and infrared
>> light, revealed three paintings, each painted over another."
>>
>> That's one of the reasons that the "miraculous" paint lasted for so
>> long. It's just not that old.
>>
>> Funny how that works, huh? I just love rational explanations.
Luha
news:NlNH9.905$lQ2.88...@newssvr12.news.prodigy.com:
Don't you understand anything, scotto? Do you need a dictionary?
>
Stephen
Stephen
Honus
>
> "Honus" <hon...@MAPSONearthlink.net> wrote
>
> > I'll try something here..some browsers let you skip the http: bit.
> Deleting
> > that should give you a short enough link that you won't need to do
> anything
> > more than click on it. I'll do it for you. ;)
> >
> >
>
www1.caller.com/ccct/state_texas_news/article/0,1641,CCCT_876_1185123,00.htm
> > l
>
> OK, got it.
You're welcome.
> If this scientist was involved in the infrared studies, can't he
> produce the photos that demonstrate his case? This was 12 years ago. Let's
> get the cat out of the bag (if there is one).
I don't know if he can or can't, or has or hasn't. I just provided the URL.
Brian Batty
> Hocus pocus nonsense.
>
"Love, in a world where carpenters are raised from the dead, anything is
possible."
BAB
Luha
news:gfRH9.17670$Q71....@news01.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com:
Educate yourself on this subject before you post, stephen. The rcc has
being trying to put the kibosh on many different types of research for a
long time. The only qualifier needed to draw the rcc's wrath is that
the research involved weaken any of the myths the church is based on.
Luha
news:D6NH9.17541$361....@nwrddc04.gnilink.net:
> "Honus" <hon...@MAPSONearthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:2xgH9.3274$kz2.3...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
>> "bam" <b...@digital.net> wrote in message
>> news:uuq7sii...@corp.supernews.com...
>> >
>> > "Alan Wostenberg" <pw...@attbi.com> wrote in message
>> > news:3DEBE0A6...@attbi.com...
>
>> My website is FULL of that stuff, from several different religions.
>
> While your website is admittedly funny and entertaining, it's merely
> everyday phenomena (not miracles) that are only taken seriously by
> readers of such low tabloids as World Weekly News and National
> Enquirer. To put silly phenomena on a par with believed miracles is
> pretty much equating astrology with serious astronomy or UFO
> conspiracy experts with NASA scientists.
>
Today's phenomena will become tomorrow's miracles if they're not
debunked. This is not a silly juxtaposition.
>
>>
[snip]
>>
>> "The cloak of Our Lady of Guadalupe is not one painting but three
> paintings
>
> This is very old hat, nothing learned here.
>
So what's your point?
>> Garza-Valdes, whose conclusions were published last week in the
>> Mexican magazine Proceso, believes the image of the Virgin is not of
>> supernatural origin, and that Juan Diego is a creation of
>> 17th-century church writings.
>
> So who is the person who died and was buried in the basilica's chapel
> in 1544?
Grant.
Along with his uncle Juan Bernardino who received one of the
> five visions of OLO Guadalupe? Juan Diego live attached to the chapel
> and was custodian of the tilma for 17 years.
>>
>> "We want to stop the canonization of Juan Diego," Garza-Valdes said.
>
> Too late. He's now St. Juan Diego.
>
Reading comprehension not your forte?
>> Garza-Valdes, a pediatrician and microbiologist, said photographs
>> taken of the image in the basilica vault in February 1999, using
>> various filters
> that
>> allow the passage of ultraviolet and infrared light, revealed three
>> paintings, each painted over another."
>>
>> That's one of the reasons that the "miraculous" paint lasted for so
>> long. It's just not that old.
>
> There are no secrets or great revelations here. It's actually pretty
> old news. It has long been public knowledge and part of the Church's
> own history of the image about its human-added embellishments and
> pre-scientific attempts in thinking it needed restoration. (Ask and
> I'll post of list of the known additions, some which have totally
> disappeared). But over time, its the man-made additions, including
> gold and silver gildings, that are fading and flaking while the
> original parts of the image still identify themselves by lack of aging
> or deterioration.
>
Much like vegetable-based pigments, huh?
>
>
> The analyzing by infrared radiation photography of biophysicist Dr.
> Philip Callahan shows different from above. There is no sketch
> underneath any of the paint, which is a prerequisite for almost all
> paintings (more then than now, too). The original blue and pink
> pigments have NOT faded, although the later touch up work has, as I
> previously pointed out.
>
Kindly explain to me how photographing a painting under infrared
radiation would possibly show pencil marks under paint. Do you think IR
is the same as x-ray radiation or some milder version thereof? That is
not what the scientist Honus quoted said was discovered under IR
photography.
>
>
> There seems to be two camps about pre-treatment of the cloth. Other
> studies indicate the tilma cloth was never treated or sized.
>
>
> Non-believer studies are too selective and debunk only what they THINK
> they can. Let's keep this in mind:
>
> 1. No mention is made of another particular phenominon of the image -
> it's light diffraction effect. This optical effect causes the face of
> the image to appear white up close and olive at a distance. This same
> effect is found in nature when colors change under different angles,
> such as on the surfaces of bird feathers or butterfly scales.
>
So?
> 2. Previous and much repeated expert examinations, experts
> particulary in painting media, have declared the fabric's loose weave
> and texture both unsuitable and unprepared for the application of
> paint. The fabric is so thin and of such a loose weave that when you
> stand behind it, the features of the basilica can be seen clearly as
> through a trellis.
>
So how could it stand three different paintings?
> 3. For 116 years the image remained atop the altar exposed to the
> atmosphere and various forms of devotions by believers. The faithful
> were never kept from the image and were allowed physical contact with
> it - that's 116 years worth of people pressing objects to the image
> yet it remained undamages. Also, there is not darkening, blackening,
> or other common effects from the close proximity of votive candles and
> lights......this would have happened even if the image was promered."
> Many believe this to be part of its miraculous protection.
>
Again, so?
> 4. The image escaped serious injury and possible destruction on two
> occassions: A) once when a goldsmith who was cleaning the frame
> accidently spilled nitric acid that ran along the left side of the
> tilma miraculously leaving only a faint streak. B) On November 14,
> 1921, when a poweful bomb hidden under a bouquet of flowers was placed
> on the altar during the Calles persecution. The metal altar crucifix
> directly beneath the image was twisted in the blast and marble
> decorations and stained-glass windows were shattered, yet the tilma
> and the protective glass remained miraculously unharmed. The mangled
> cruxifix is now displayed in a case for all to see how destructive the
> explosion was. Many believe these to also be part of its miraculous
> protection.
>
What was the titer of the nitric acid? What frame? You said it was
unprotected!
Bomb: so?
> 5. Optimetrists that have studied the image's eyes have noted the
> eyes relect light rays the same as human eyes when they are examined
> optometrically.
>
What do you mean by that? Has this work been published?
>
> But since the topic was also the eyes, keep in mind how cautious and
> conservative the Church has been about them. The first evidence of
> possible relections/images in the images eyes happened in 1929 by
> Alfonso Marcué Gonzáles while examing negatives of photos. It wasn't
> until the conclusions of a commission were presented to the local
> archbishop that the phenomenon was even made known on December 11,
> 1955 (during a public radion broadcast which happened to be the eve of
> the Feast of Our Lady of Guadalupe).
>
So?
Brian Batty
Protestant myth believed as humanist fact.
Brian Batty
> "Brian Batty" <bba...@holycross.edu> wrote in
> news:D6NH9.17541$361....@nwrddc04.gnilink.net:
>
> > "Honus" <hon...@MAPSONearthlink.net> wrote in message
> > news:2xgH9.3274$kz2.3...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
> >> "bam" <b...@digital.net> wrote in message
> >> news:uuq7sii...@corp.supernews.com...
> >> >
> >> > "Alan Wostenberg" <pw...@attbi.com> wrote in message
> >> > news:3DEBE0A6...@attbi.com...
> >
> >> My website is FULL of that stuff, from several different religions.
> >
> > While your website is admittedly funny and entertaining, it's merely
> > everyday phenomena (not miracles) that are only taken seriously by
> > readers of such low tabloids as World Weekly News and National
> > Enquirer. To put silly phenomena on a par with believed miracles is
> > pretty much equating astrology with serious astronomy or UFO
> > conspiracy experts with NASA scientists.
> >
> Today's phenomena will become tomorrow's miracles if they're not
> debunked. This is not a silly juxtaposition.
Oh please! Show me a Chruch accepted miracle (if any) of a potato chip,
tortilla, piece of fruit, or anything on that level that is more than 100
years old. Especially those concerning images. There are virtually hundreds
of miracles that the Church claims accorded to images that it knows are
man-made. I could be wrong, and will stand corrected, but I believe this is
the only believed miracle by the Church in which the image, itselft, is of
miraculous creation, not miracles attributed to it. (And don't bring up the
Turin shroud...it was the Church that always maintained it was not an
authentic image of Jesus despite yammerings of non-Catholics and eager
scientists).
> [snip]
> >>
> >> "The cloak of Our Lady of Guadalupe is not one painting but three
> > paintings
> >
> > This is very old hat, nothing learned here.
> >
> So what's your point?
Like many too enthusiastically wanting to debunk somthing opposite their
beliefs, an old fact is falsely insinuated as something new and therefore
somehow "validates" the researcher.
>
> >> Garza-Valdes, whose conclusions were published last week in the
> >> Mexican magazine Proceso, believes the image of the Virgin is not of
> >> supernatural origin, and that Juan Diego is a creation of
> >> 17th-century church writings.
> >
> > So who is the person who died and was buried in the basilica's chapel
> > in 1544?
>
> Grant.
(not even cute)
>
> Along with his uncle Juan Bernardino who received one of the
> > five visions of OLO Guadalupe? Juan Diego live attached to the chapel
> > and was custodian of the tilma for 17 years.
> >>
> >> "We want to stop the canonization of Juan Diego," Garza-Valdes said.
> >
> > Too late. He's now St. Juan Diego.
> >
> Reading comprehension not your forte?
I...guess so...please explain.
>
> >> Garza-Valdes, a pediatrician and microbiologist, said photographs
> >> taken of the image in the basilica vault in February 1999, using
> >> various filters
> > that
> >> allow the passage of ultraviolet and infrared light, revealed three
> >> paintings, each painted over another."
> >>
> >> That's one of the reasons that the "miraculous" paint lasted for so
> >> long. It's just not that old.
> >
> > There are no secrets or great revelations here. It's actually pretty
> > old news. It has long been public knowledge and part of the Church's
> > own history of the image about its human-added embellishments and
> > pre-scientific attempts in thinking it needed restoration. (Ask and
> > I'll post of list of the known additions, some which have totally
> > disappeared). But over time, its the man-made additions, including
> > gold and silver gildings, that are fading and flaking while the
> > original parts of the image still identify themselves by lack of aging
> > or deterioration.
> >
> Much like vegetable-based pigments, huh?
The four different media identified on the tilma are oil, temera, water
color, and fresco.
> >
> > The analyzing by infrared radiation photography of biophysicist Dr.
> > Philip Callahan shows different from above. There is no sketch
> > underneath any of the paint, which is a prerequisite for almost all
> > paintings (more then than now, too). The original blue and pink
> > pigments have NOT faded, although the later touch up work has, as I
> > previously pointed out.
> >
> Kindly explain to me how photographing a painting under infrared
> radiation would possibly show pencil marks under paint. Do you think IR
> is the same as x-ray radiation or some milder version thereof? That is
> not what the scientist Honus quoted said was discovered under IR
> photography.
To the first part, I honestly wouldn't know. To the second part, my answer
is "no," but I thought it important to state the scientist's methods. I have
to go by what was written by the scientist as I am not one myself. I know
that's not what "Honus'" scientist said - that's why I presented another
(reputable and published) scientists' findings. It's now up to you to pick
and choose which ever one fits your pre-conceived and expected opinions and
beliefs.
> >
> > There seems to be two camps about pre-treatment of the cloth. Other
> > studies indicate the tilma cloth was never treated or sized.
> >
> >
> > Non-believer studies are too selective and debunk only what they THINK
> > they can. Let's keep this in mind:
> >
> > 1. No mention is made of another particular phenominon of the image -
> > it's light diffraction effect. This optical effect causes the face of
> > the image to appear white up close and olive at a distance. This same
> > effect is found in nature when colors change under different angles,
> > such as on the surfaces of bird feathers or butterfly scales.
> >
> So?
"Reading comprehension not your forte?"
Do you know of other centuries old images or techniques that copy this
effect?
> > 2. Previous and much repeated expert examinations, experts
> > particulary in painting media, have declared the fabric's loose weave
> > and texture both unsuitable and unprepared for the application of
> > paint. The fabric is so thin and of such a loose weave that when you
> > stand behind it, the features of the basilica can be seen clearly as
> > through a trellis.
> >
> So how could it stand three different paintings?
Two done over the original.
>
> > 3. For 116 years the image remained atop the altar exposed to the
> > atmosphere and various forms of devotions by believers. The faithful
> > were never kept from the image and were allowed physical contact with
> > it - that's 116 years worth of people pressing objects to the image
> > yet it remained undamages. Also, there is not darkening, blackening,
> > or other common effects from the close proximity of votive candles and
> > lights......this would have happened even if the image was promered."
> > Many believe this to be part of its miraculous protection.
> >
> Again, so?
"Reading comprehension not your forte?"
The Sistine Chapel ceiling had to be restored because of atmospheric
exposure and darkening from candles. Many of the so-called "Black Madonna"
icons are that way because of natural darkening along with that which is
always caused by traditional devotional lignting.
>
> > 4. The image escaped serious injury and possible destruction on two
> > occassions: A) once when a goldsmith who was cleaning the frame
> > accidently spilled nitric acid that ran along the left side of the
> > tilma miraculously leaving only a faint streak. B) On November 14,
> > 1921, when a poweful bomb hidden under a bouquet of flowers was placed
> > on the altar during the Calles persecution. The metal altar crucifix
> > directly beneath the image was twisted in the blast and marble
> > decorations and stained-glass windows were shattered, yet the tilma
> > and the protective glass remained miraculously unharmed. The mangled
> > cruxifix is now displayed in a case for all to see how destructive the
> > explosion was. Many believe these to also be part of its miraculous
> > protection.
> >
> What was the titer of the nitric acid?
To be honest, I don't know and I don't (personally) have a resource at hand
that would tell me. Sorry.
>What frame? You said it was unprotected!
"Reading comprehension not your forte?"
Unprotected for the first 116 years (see above and previous post).
>
> Bomb: so?
Guess you would be the only one to survive untouched a blast dirctly under
you, too.
>
> > 5. Optimetrists that have studied the image's eyes have noted the
> > eyes relect light rays the same as human eyes when they are examined
> > optometrically.
> >
> What do you mean by that?
"Reading comprehension not your forte?"
Has this work been published?
Rahm, Harold, "Am I Not Here?"
AMI Press, Washington, NJ, 1963
> >
> > But since the topic was also the eyes, keep in mind how cautious and
> > conservative the Church has been about them. The first evidence of
> > possible relections/images in the images eyes happened in 1929 by
> > Alfonso Marcué Gonzáles while examing negatives of photos. It wasn't
> > until the conclusions of a commission were presented to the local
> > archbishop that the phenomenon was even made known on December 11,
> > 1955 (during a public radion broadcast which happened to be the eve of
> > the Feast of Our Lady of Guadalupe).
> >
> So?
So the Church doesn't allow sloppy or "wham-bam" info out (quick slam-dunk
studies like the original article posted). It knows enough and has the
patience to wait for years until the Church is sure of Itself and a
phenomena even worthy of study or belief. Potato Chips would never even
get up to plate.
Honus
news:D6NH9.17541$361....@nwrddc04.gnilink.net...
> "Honus" <hon...@MAPSONearthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:2xgH9.3274$kz2.3...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
> > "bam" <b...@digital.net> wrote in message
> > news:uuq7sii...@corp.supernews.com...
> > >
> > > "Alan Wostenberg" <pw...@attbi.com> wrote in message
> > > news:3DEBE0A6...@attbi.com...
>
> > My website is FULL of that stuff, from several different religions.
>
> While your website is admittedly funny and entertaining,
Thank you. Ultimately, that -is- the main idea.
> it's merely
> everyday phenomena (not miracles)
Well...I knew that. As a matter of fact, I probably pointed it out two or
eight times. ;)
> that are only taken seriously by readers
> of such low tabloids as World Weekly News and National Enquirer. To put
> silly phenomena on a par with believed miracles is pretty much equating
> astrology with serious astronomy or UFO conspiracy experts with NASA
> scientists.
Don't forget, I quote a number of priests that seem to be favorably
impressed by these silly little things. And to be fair, I also quote some
that -don't- accept them for what they're claimed to be. And they -are-
believed miracles; whether you personally believe them or not is beside the
point. The fact remains, there're people that buy this stuff, and I daresay
people in this group. (I'd love a show of hands, out of curiosity.) Bear in
mind the number of visitors some of these people get. I don't think that
they're all skeptics or people with nothing to do; it's clear that the
majority of them are pious believers. Besides that, I also briefly address
the Our Lady of Guadalupe issue, as well as the Turin Shoud. (I think that
must be the sort of thing that you have in mind by "believed miracles".) And
further, there are any number of pages on the Web that address "believed
miracles"; I didn't have much to add. What I've done seems to be unique,
although as you've said I may just be mocking the inbred.
As for "silly phenomena", what's the difference between this and seeing
Jesus on a tortilla? Not a whole lot, in my book. I've seen some of the
photos of this so-called miracle, and it's no different than any of the ones
at my site. People see what they want to see, if they see anything at all.
> > Mr. Wostenberg made a serious mistake when he chose the title for this
> > thread. And here's a link to a story about a -Catholic- scientist who
says
> > the whole Guadalupe thing is hog-wash. And I'll bet the credibility of
my
> > scientists approaches that of yours. <gbg>
> >
> >
>
http://www1.caller.com/ccct/state_texas_news/article/0,1641,CCCT_876_1185123
> > ,00.html
> >
> > Allow me to quote:
> >
> > "But recent studies of the image are feeding centuries-old uncertainties
> > over its origin, says Leoncio A. Garza-Valdes, 61, who in 1999 was part
of
> a
> > team that evaluated the cloth.
> >
> > "The cloak of Our Lady of Guadalupe is not one painting but three
> paintings
>
> This is very old hat, nothing learned here.
That's not true. It's old to me, and it's old to you...but not everyone here
is familiar with it. I don't feel any qualms about disseminating the
information.
> > Garza-Valdes, whose conclusions were published last week in the Mexican
> > magazine Proceso, believes the image of the Virgin is not of
supernatural
> > origin, and that Juan Diego is a creation of 17th-century church
writings.
>
> So who is the person who died and was buried in the basilica's chapel in
> 1544?
> Along with his uncle Juan Bernardino who received one of the five
> visions of OLO Guadalupe? Juan Diego live attached to the chapel and was
> custodian of the tilma for 17 years.
Well then, these reporters have really dropped the ball on that one haven't
they?
> > "We want to stop the canonization of Juan Diego," Garza-Valdes said.
>
> Too late. He's now St. Juan Diego.
It's obviously an archived story.
> > Garza-Valdes, a pediatrician and microbiologist, said photographs taken
of
> > the image in the basilica vault in February 1999, using various filters
> that
> > allow the passage of ultraviolet and infrared light, revealed three
> > paintings, each painted over another."
> >
> > That's one of the reasons that the "miraculous" paint lasted for so
long.
> > It's just not that old.
>
> There are no secrets or great revelations here. It's actually pretty old
> news. It has long been public knowledge and part of the Church's own
history
> of the image about its human-added embellishments and pre-scientific
> attempts in thinking it needed restoration. (Ask and I'll post of list of
> the known additions, some which have totally disappeared). But over time,
> its the man-made additions, including gold and silver gildings, that are
> fading and flaking while the original parts of the image still identify
> themselves by lack of aging or deterioration.
You say. I have no way of knowing that any of the original exists, do I? Or
that it shouldn't be expected to exist to some extant.
> The analyzing by infrared radiation photography of biophysicist Dr. Philip
> Callahan shows different from above.
And so, as I predicted, this has come down to dueling scientists. Scientist
A says this, Scientist B says that.
> There is no sketch underneath any of
> the paint,
Again, you say. My source for that one has always had a great deal of
credibility in my eyes. He may be wrong, and I'm open to that possibility.
But I'm very much inclined to take his word for it, barring any "hands-on"
investigating of my own.
> Non-believer studies are too selective and debunk only what they THINK
they
> can. Let's keep this in mind:
And believer studies aren't biased? I don't hear a lot of Sindonologists
discussing the investigation into the shroud done when it was first brought
to light. The one where the Bishop (IIRC) claimed to know who painted it,
etc. That's not being selective?
> 1. No mention is made of another particular phenominon of the image -
it's
> light diffraction effect. This optical effect causes the face of the image
> to appear white up close and olive at a distance. This same effect is
found
> in nature when colors change under different angles, such as on the
surfaces
> of bird feathers or butterfly scales.
I'm sorry, but I don't see how I'm supposed to be impressed by that.
Obviously I'm missing something. The fact that the same effect is found in
nature is no surprisel neither is the fact that it shows in the image. Show
me that it doesn't show in any other image, and I'll be much more impressed.
> 2. Previous and much repeated expert examinations, experts particulary in
> painting media, have declared the fabric's loose weave and texture both
> unsuitable and unprepared for the application of paint. The fabric is so
> thin and of such a loose weave that when you stand behind it, the features
> of the basilica can be seen clearly as through a trellis.
Again, I provided a quote from an art expert that says the image -was-
prepared, and he obviously had no problems with the notion that the fabric
was in fact a suitable medium for receiving paint. On top of that, it's
conceded that the image has been re-touched. With what? Paint.
> 3. For 116 years the image remained atop the altar exposed to the
> atmosphere and various forms of devotions by believers. The faithful were
> never kept from the image and were allowed physical contact with it -
that's
> 116 years worth of people pressing objects to the image yet it remained
> undamages. Also, there is not darkening, blackening, or other common
effects
> from the close proximity of votive candles and lights......this would have
> happened even if the image was promered." Many believe this to be part of
> its miraculous protection.
I would say that it's probably been cleaned. (BTW...what's the definition of
promered?) This was just recently addressed in the thread about the
Incorruptibles. Again, it's conceded that humans have been fiddling with it
for ages. Am I to believe that this "care" didn't involve...care?
> 4. The image escaped serious injury and possible destruction on two
> occassions: A) once when a goldsmith who was cleaning the frame
accidently
> spilled nitric acid that ran along the left side of the tilma miraculously
> leaving only a faint streak. B) On November 14, 1921, when a poweful bomb
> hidden under a bouquet of flowers was placed on the altar during the
Calles
> persecution. The metal altar crucifix directly beneath the image was
twisted
> in the blast and marble decorations and stained-glass windows were
> shattered, yet the tilma and the protective glass remained miraculously
> unharmed. The mangled cruxifix is now displayed in a case for all to see
how
> destructive the explosion was. Many believe these to also be part of its
> miraculous protection.
I'd call that good fortune.
> 5. Optimetrists that have studied the image's eyes have noted the eyes
> relect light rays the same as human eyes when they are examined
> optometrically.
I'm not sure what you mean by that, either. What do you mean, reflect light
rays? Human eyes don't "reflect light rays" in any special way.
> But since the topic was also the eyes, keep in mind how cautious and
> conservative the Church has been about them.
The Church is (and rightly so) conservative about most miracles. It's called
covering their butts. What's the official position on this particular
phenomena?
Honus
news:sFLH9.881$qh6.86...@newssvr12.news.prodigy.com...
Say, that's very interesting! Of course, I still didn't know that the URL I
provided would wrap; but for the times that I -do- know it, I might just use
this service.
Thanks for the URL.
Honus
> I *think* some killfiles will kill only original posts and not replies.
That's correct if you have the filter setup to filter posts from a
particular user. Responses to that senders posts will still be displayed in
that case. At least that's the case with Outlook and Netscape.
Honus
news:pzUH9.45294$ic6....@nwrddc01.gnilink.net...
I have a source (with a quote from a Pope) that IIRC correctly says
otherwise. I'll see if I can dig it up, if no one beats me to the punch.
In the meantime, ponder this from the Catholic Encyclopedia:
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13762a.htm
"That the authenticity of the Shroud of Turin is taken for granted, in
various pronouncements of the Holy See cannot be disputed. An Office and
Mass "de Sancta Sindone" was formerly approved by Julius II in the Bull
"Romanus Pontifex" of 25 April, 1506, in the course of which the Pope speaks
of "that most famous Shroud (proeclarissima sindone) in which our Savior was
wrapped when he lay in the tomb and which is now honorably and devoutly
preserved in a silver casket." Moreover, the same Pontiff speaks of the
treaties upon the precious blood. Composed by his predecessor, Sixtus IV, in
which Sixtus states that in the Shroud "men may look upon the true blood and
portrait of Jesus Christ himself." "
It sure sounds like an endorsement of authenticity to me.
> "Reading comprehension not your forte?"
> Do you know of other centuries old images or techniques that copy this
> effect?
Has anybody bothered to look? And what you call a technique might just be an
inherent property of the materials.
> > > 2. Previous and much repeated expert examinations, experts
> > > particulary in painting media, have declared the fabric's loose weave
> > > and texture both unsuitable and unprepared for the application of
> > > paint. The fabric is so thin and of such a loose weave that when you
> > > stand behind it, the features of the basilica can be seen clearly as
> > > through a trellis.
> > >
> > So how could it stand three different paintings?
>
> Two done over the original.
By who? Was Mary practicing? Who would dare paint different pictures over
the top of her work? It seems to me that I pointed this out before. What
were you saying about skeptics picking and choosing to debunk only what they
think they can debunk?
> > Bomb: so?
>
> Guess you would be the only one to survive untouched a blast dirctly under
> you, too.
I take issue with the term "directly under" until I see that the image was
suspended in the air (not miraculously) rather than say, attached to a wall.
What I can't concede is that there was no damage from the blast. I need to
see some sort of evidence if I'm to accept that as a miracle. What kind of
shape was the wall in around the image? Was the wall blackened, etc. That'd
be a place to start.
> > > 5. Optimetrists that have studied the image's eyes have noted the
> > > eyes relect light rays the same as human eyes when they are examined
> > > optometrically.
> > >
> > What do you mean by that?
>
> "Reading comprehension not your forte?"
>
> Has this work been published?
>
> Rahm, Harold, "Am I Not Here?"
> AMI Press, Washington, NJ, 1963
Not impressed. We'd all agree that publication doesn't mean squat, I think.
(Take a hard look at the books on theology at your local library to see what
I mean.) How about some peer-review?
> > > But since the topic was also the eyes, keep in mind how cautious and
> > > conservative the Church has been about them. The first evidence of
> > > possible relections/images in the images eyes happened in 1929 by
> > > Alfonso Marcué Gonzáles while examing negatives of photos. It wasn't
> > > until the conclusions of a commission were presented to the local
> > > archbishop that the phenomenon was even made known on December 11,
> > > 1955 (during a public radion broadcast which happened to be the eve of
> > > the Feast of Our Lady of Guadalupe).
> > >
> > So?
>
> So the Church doesn't allow sloppy or "wham-bam" info out (quick slam-dunk
> studies like the original article posted). It knows enough and has the
> patience to wait for years until the Church is sure of Itself and a
> phenomena even worthy of study or belief.
That's one way of looking at it. Another way of looking at it would be that
they wait until any witnesses are dead, and the matter can't be truly and
honestly investigated. But that's just cynical.
> Potato Chips would never even
> get up to plate.
They make it to my plate just fine. ;)
Alan Ferris
wrote:
>What did Jesus say about those who call others fools?
Have you not realised that Cathy is above all that. She can do no
wrong in defending Catholicism it appears by her behaviour.
Alan Ferris
wrote:
>If you ever wondered if jumping off a cliff hurts would you have to jump off
>to be convinced?
>
>Don't let your heart look to statues of St. Mary - that's demonic. A statue
>is simply decorative, perhaps thought provoking but that is all. It is not
>to be kneeled to, bowed to, adored, worshipped or prayed to. It's a
>decoration. A dead thing save for the bacteria eating its wood.
No, but it seems you and others will jump of a cliff because you
believe something, rather than checking first to see if it is a cliff
and if it is safe to jump.
Why be scared of finding the truth?
Alan Ferris
wrote:
Dead sea scrolls? Ask the experts what they think of Catholic
involvement there!
Stephen
Stephen
Scott
Well I guess both you and Alan can stuff your pants of straw and do a little
jig down a yellow-brick road.
So I take it both of you "*always* wonder why" and "always *seems*"
Brian Batty
Hello Honus/Luha:
That's an approval of a mass specifically for the shroud. It's not unusual
for other ancient, man-made sacrementals/devotional items of the Church. The
authenticity of the shroud was usually one of personal belief - from peasant
to cleric to pope. But there was never an official Chruch endorsement of its
authenticity. And devotion to man-made religious images is a well known
accepted Catholic practice. Actually, if you finish reading the full entry
that you quoted from the online Catholic resource you'll find this a
distinct belief of its non-divine status:
"An animated controversy followed and it must be admitted that though the
immense preponderance of opinion among learned Catholics (see the statement
by P.M. Baumgarten in the "Historiches Jarbuch", 1903, pp. 319-43) was
adverse to the authenticity of the relic, still the violence of many of its
assailants prejudiced their own cause. In particular the suggestion made of
blundering or bad faith on the part of those who photographed were quite
without excuse. From the scientific point of view, however, the difficulty
of the "negative" impression on the cloth is not so serious as it seems.
This Shroud like the others was probably painted without fraudulent intent
to aid the dramatic setting of the Easter sequence:"
"'Die nobis Maria, quid vidisti in via
Angelicos testes, sudarium et vestes.'"
"As the word sudarium suggested, it was painted to represent the impression
made by the sweat of Christ, i.e. probably in a yellowish tint upon
unbrilliant red. This yellow stain would turn brown in the course of
centuries...(etc)"
"...On the supposition that this is an authentic relic dating from the year
A.D. 30, why should it have retained its brilliance through countless
journeys and changes of climate for fifteen centuries, and then in four
centuries more have become almost invisible? On the other hand if it be a
fabrication of the fifteenth century this is exactly what we should expect."
On of the few, if only, absolute and undisputed agreements from "all sides"
conerning the shroud is its documented history which doesn't begin until
1350 AD. There are very numerous mentions of "a" shroud going all the way
back to the 7th century, but is is well known there were numerous clothe
floating around claiming to be the burial cloth of Jesus which were all
merely pius paintings - there were many during the 14th century time of the
Turin shroud. That is probably the reason why Chruch officials contemporary
(14th cent) to the Turin shroud were so against it: according to the
"D'Arcis Memorandum", in 1355 the first known expositions of the Shroud are
held in Lirey. Reportedly, Bishop Henri refused to believe the Shroud could
be genuine and ordered the expositions halted. The Shroud was then hidden
away. Then, on January 6, 1390, Clement VII writes to Bishop d'Arcis,
ordering him to keep silent on the Shroud, under threat of excommunication.
On the same date Clement writes a letter to Geoffrey II de Charny apparently
restating the conditions under which expositions could be allowed. That day
he also writes to other relevant individuals, asking them to ensure that his
orders are obeyed.
Althought these aren't direct Chruch statements, I thought I'd include them:
"Over the centuries, dozens of shrouds--some with images and some
without--have surfaced claiming to be the burial cloth of Jesus. In the case
of the Shroud of Turin, it has been publicly declared a forgery by both
Roman Catholic Church officials and prominent scientists." -- David
Sunfellow
"The Vatican does not claim the Shroud is authentic but treasures and
venerates it as a powerful reminder of Christ's passion. Pope John Paul said
in 1998 after traveling to Turin to pray before the Shroud that scientists
should keep seeking answers to its mystery but should keep an open mind." --
May 2000 Reuters
"The Vatican does not claim the Shroud is authentic but treasures and
venerates it as a powerful reminder of Christ's passion." -- Jude Webber
from Yahoo News
But I digress, this topic is supposed to be about the Guadalupe image (which
I believe miraculous), not the Turin shroud (which I don't).
> > "Reading comprehension not your forte?"
> > Do you know of other centuries old images or techniques that copy this
> > effect?
>
> Has anybody bothered to look? And what you call a technique might just be
an
> inherent property of the materials.
In 1979, Americans scientists Philip Callahan and Jody B. Smith studied the
image. "Callahan and Smith showed how the image changes in color slightly
according to the angle of viewing, a phenomenon that is known by the word
iridescence, a technique that cannot be reproduced with human hands."
>
> > > > 2. Previous and much repeated expert examinations, experts
> > > > particulary in painting media, have declared the fabric's loose
weave
> > > > and texture both unsuitable and unprepared for the application of
> > > > paint. The fabric is so thin and of such a loose weave that when
you
> > > > stand behind it, the features of the basilica can be seen clearly as
> > > > through a trellis.
> > > >
> > > So how could it stand three different paintings?
> >
> > Two done over the original.
>
> By who? Was Mary practicing? Who would dare paint different pictures over
> the top of her work? It seems to me that I pointed this out before. What
> were you saying about skeptics picking and choosing to debunk only what
they
> think they can debunk?
Like I observe in many people today, you're thinking too much like a 21st
person, and about what might be strange to YOU. I can best present this from
a quote: The picture painted by supernatural means was not exempt from human
interference. Just as treasured statues and images are adorned with jewels
and golden trinkets, so also the devotees of Our Lady of Guadalupe wished to
express their love and gratitude by the application of various trimmings.
Several additions were painted on the cloth, including angels in the
clouds..." (Cruz).
It's well documented it was touched up with paint by Fray Miguel Sanchez
trying to enhance the image. (Those overlays are showing significant
cracking while the original is in perfect condition.)
Richard Kuhn, a Nobel Prize winner in chemistry, has found that the
[original] image did not have natural, animal or mineral colorings. Given
that there were no synthetic colorings in 1531, the image is inexplicable.
>
> > > Bomb: so?
> >
> > Guess you would be the only one to survive untouched a blast dirctly
under
> > you, too.
>
> I take issue with the term "directly under" until I see that the image was
> suspended in the air (not miraculously) rather than say, attached to a
wall.
> What I can't concede is that there was no damage from the blast. I need to
> see some sort of evidence if I'm to accept that as a miracle. What kind of
> shape was the wall in around the image? Was the wall blackened, etc.
That'd
> be a place to start.
Why should you need the singular privilege of direct evidence? (and I stated
the blasted iron crucifix is on display). Why wouldn't post WW I reports and
witnesses be enough, or the eyewitness after-effects by thousands of
Mexicans? This wasn't the middles ages, it was the 1920's. This is like the
same kind of thinking used to claim the Holocaust is made-up Jewish
propaganda amd never happened because you claim no direct proof that you can
currently see. You can't "concede it" because you choose not to believe that
could have happened. Seeing how the image is hung now would be no help as
the image is now housed in a newly built basilica (the old one being too
structerely unsound).
>
> > > > 5. Optimetrists that have studied the image's eyes have noted the
> > > > eyes relect light rays the same as human eyes when they are examined
> > > > optometrically.
> > > >
> > > What do you mean by that?
> >
> > "Reading comprehension not your forte?"
> >
> > Has this work been published?
> >
> > Rahm, Harold, "Am I Not Here?"
> > AMI Press, Washington, NJ, 1963
>
> Not impressed. We'd all agree that publication doesn't mean squat, I
think.
> (Take a hard look at the books on theology at your local library to see
what
> I mean.) How about some peer-review?
This is what took me a long time after getting the message after work. I had
to ponder over your response for a while. At first I could only conjecture
what you meant (I thought you meant it was beneath us on a research level or
because of the date). But now I think I see where you're coming from. Your
local library doesn't carry a copy so it's not of any value? (based on this,
your worlview must be bleak indeed). Does your local libary have a rare
Gutenberg Bible? (some do). If so, are other libraries worthless? If I'm
looking for a Catholic resource, I'll go to a Catholic library (I'm lucky
enough to have 2 catholic college/univerisities where I live, one of them
the oldest in the NE and where I work, so I'm lucky with resources). Though
not the above book listed, I did find other published studies by Rahm listed
at Harvard if that means anything.
"According to Javier Torroella, the ophthalmologist who examined the eyes of
the Virgin [1951], not only was there the reflection of a human bust in both
the Virgin's eyes, but the reflection was positioned in ***exactly the same
way reflections are seen on a human cornea-a phenomenon called the
Purkinje-Sanson principle, which causes reflections in the eye to be split
in three due to the eye's curvature.*** This would imply that the eyes of
the Virgin's image are curved exactly the way the human eye is curved. These
findings were confirmed by two more ophthalmologists, in 1958 and 1975." (
My note: Dr. Rafael Torija-Lavoignet published his study of the
Purkinje-Sanson effect in 1958)
Sorry, no current peer-review. As I stated, this part of the phenomenon
seems to have been passed over by skeptics.
> > > > But since the topic was also the eyes, keep in mind how cautious and
> > > > conservative the Church has been about them. The first evidence of
> > > > possible relections/images in the images eyes happened in 1929 by
> > > > Alfonso Marcué Gonzáles while examing negatives of photos. It
wasn't
> > > > until the conclusions of a commission were presented to the local
> > > > archbishop that the phenomenon was even made known on December 11,
> > > > 1955 (during a public radion broadcast which happened to be the eve
of
> > > > the Feast of Our Lady of Guadalupe).
> > > >
> > > So?
> >
> > So the Church doesn't allow sloppy or "wham-bam" info out (quick
slam-dunk
> > studies like the original article posted). It knows enough and has the
> > patience to wait for years until the Church is sure of Itself and a
> > phenomena even worthy of study or belief.
>
> That's one way of looking at it. Another way of looking at it would be
that
> they wait until any witnesses are dead, and the matter can't be truly and
> honestly investigated. But that's just cynical.
Yes it is. One, 1929 was simply the first. There were some after, and I
doubt most if any of the "discoverers" were dead. Two, it wasn't the Church
that found or put any early claims on the eye reflection discovery.
Luha
@news02.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com:
> I *think* some killfiles will kill only original posts and not replies.
>
> Stephen
>
You are right but shout loony is replying to me directly now, not
piggybacking her replies to me on other respondents. She either never
killfiled me or has had enough of my first amendment rights. You be the
judge.
Luha
news:rT3I9.1547$BK3.108...@newssvr12.news.prodigy.com:
Whatever, scotto. Sorry to have woken you up. Maybe you'll reply in
English one fine day.
Luha
@nwrddc01.gnilink.net:
Galileo. Harvey. Franklin.
Luha
I was not referring to blotches. I had the whole enchillada of yours in
mind when I wrote this. Imagine a major religion based on the teachings
of a supposed human being who left not one iota of evidence that he
existed. Not even an official report from a Roman agent back to Rome.
Especially those scared shitless by the cataclysm that followed the
crucifixion. So strange. A less gullible man might even believe it.
>> [snip]
>> >>
>> >> "The cloak of Our Lady of Guadalupe is not one painting but three
>> > paintings
>> >
>> > This is very old hat, nothing learned here.
>> >
>> So what's your point?
>
> Like many too enthusiastically wanting to debunk somthing opposite
> their beliefs, an old fact is falsely insinuated as something new and
> therefore somehow "validates" the researcher.
>
Most debunkers go after extraordinary claims that cannot possibly be
true. You must admit that the finding directly contradicts the article
that originated this thread. Honus was replying to that, I believe. He
was not replying to your more sophisticated version of the "miracle".
>>
>> >> Garza-Valdes, whose conclusions were published last week in the
>> >> Mexican magazine Proceso, believes the image of the Virgin is not
>> >> of supernatural origin, and that Juan Diego is a creation of
>> >> 17th-century church writings.
>> >
>> > So who is the person who died and was buried in the basilica's
>> > chapel in 1544?
>>
>> Grant.
> (not even cute)
>
I had a good laugh as I wrote it.
>>
>> Along with his uncle Juan Bernardino who received one of the
>> > five visions of OLO Guadalupe? Juan Diego live attached to the
>> > chapel and was custodian of the tilma for 17 years.
>> >>
>> >> "We want to stop the canonization of Juan Diego," Garza-Valdes
>> >> said.
>> >
>> > Too late. He's now St. Juan Diego.
>> >
>> Reading comprehension not your forte?
>
> I...guess so...please explain.
>
The statement was made at a point in time prior to juan's cannonization.
>>
>> >> Garza-Valdes, a pediatrician and microbiologist, said photographs
>> >> taken of the image in the basilica vault in February 1999, using
>> >> various filters
>> > that
>> >> allow the passage of ultraviolet and infrared light, revealed
>> >> three paintings, each painted over another."
>> >>
>> >> That's one of the reasons that the "miraculous" paint lasted for
>> >> so long. It's just not that old.
>> >
>> > There are no secrets or great revelations here. It's actually
>> > pretty old news. It has long been public knowledge and part of the
>> > Church's own history of the image about its human-added
>> > embellishments and pre-scientific attempts in thinking it needed
>> > restoration. (Ask and I'll post of list of the known additions,
>> > some which have totally disappeared). But over time, its the
>> > man-made additions, including gold and silver gildings, that are
>> > fading and flaking while the original parts of the image still
>> > identify themselves by lack of aging or deterioration.
>> >
>> Much like vegetable-based pigments, huh?
>
> The four different media identified on the tilma are oil, temera,
> water color, and fresco.
>
So there are man-made media on the shroud. Thanks for that. What was
the article referring to then?
>> >
>> > The analyzing by infrared radiation photography of biophysicist Dr.
>> > Philip Callahan shows different from above. There is no sketch
>> > underneath any of the paint, which is a prerequisite for almost all
>> > paintings (more then than now, too). The original blue and pink
>> > pigments have NOT faded, although the later touch up work has, as I
>> > previously pointed out.
>> >
>> Kindly explain to me how photographing a painting under infrared
>> radiation would possibly show pencil marks under paint. Do you think
>> IR is the same as x-ray radiation or some milder version thereof?
>> That is not what the scientist Honus quoted said was discovered under
>> IR photography.
>
> To the first part, I honestly wouldn't know.
Then you should not post it as a rebuttal. That smacks of deception. I
know something about the capabilities of infrared and I can tell you it
does not uncover or penetrate. It merely can show differences in
absorbance and, used in spectroscopy, tell you what molecular bonds are
present. It is not a diagnostic for graphite or charcoal.
To the second part, my
> answer is "no," but I thought it important to state the scientist's
> methods. I have to go by what was written by the scientist as I am not
> one myself. I know that's not what "Honus'" scientist said - that's
> why I presented another (reputable and published) scientists'
> findings. It's now up to you to pick and choose which ever one fits
> your pre-conceived and expected opinions and beliefs.
>
A scientist can only report what is demonstrated and the means used for
discovery. In the case above, neither statement (Honus' scientist or
yours) is at variance from one another. However, the statement from
Honus' scientist bears more weight as s/he has made an assertion that
can very easily be corroborated or debunked.
>> >
>> > There seems to be two camps about pre-treatment of the cloth.
>> > Other studies indicate the tilma cloth was never treated or sized.
>> >
>> >
>> > Non-believer studies are too selective and debunk only what they
>> > THINK they can. Let's keep this in mind:
>> >
>> > 1. No mention is made of another particular phenominon of the
>> > image - it's light diffraction effect. This optical effect causes
>> > the face of the image to appear white up close and olive at a
>> > distance. This same effect is found in nature when colors change
>> > under different angles, such as on the surfaces of bird feathers or
>> > butterfly scales.
>> >
>> So?
>
> "Reading comprehension not your forte?"
> Do you know of other centuries old images or techniques that copy this
> effect?
>
Well, first of all, I am not sure you are right as I have not been to
see the painting. Take your word for it? No.
>
>> > 2. Previous and much repeated expert examinations, experts
>> > particulary in painting media, have declared the fabric's loose
>> > weave and texture both unsuitable and unprepared for the
>> > application of paint. The fabric is so thin and of such a loose
>> > weave that when you stand behind it, the features of the basilica
>> > can be seen clearly as through a trellis.
>> >
>> So how could it stand three different paintings?
>
> Two done over the original.
>
Therefore, it must have been possible. I'd hate to have been one of
these experts.
>>
>> > 3. For 116 years the image remained atop the altar exposed to the
>> > atmosphere and various forms of devotions by believers. The
>> > faithful were never kept from the image and were allowed physical
>> > contact with it - that's 116 years worth of people pressing objects
>> > to the image yet it remained undamages. Also, there is not
>> > darkening, blackening, or other common effects from the close
>> > proximity of votive candles and lights......this would have
>> > happened even if the image was promered." Many believe this to be
>> > part of its miraculous protection.
>> >
>> Again, so?
>
> "Reading comprehension not your forte?"
> The Sistine Chapel ceiling had to be restored because of atmospheric
> exposure and darkening from candles. Many of the so-called "Black
> Madonna" icons are that way because of natural darkening along with
> that which is always caused by traditional devotional lignting.
>
Yet, the original article even states that the painting has been
retouched. You can't have it both ways. Either the damned thing is
decaying or it isn't.
>>
>> > 4. The image escaped serious injury and possible destruction on
>> > two occassions: A) once when a goldsmith who was cleaning the
>> > frame accidently spilled nitric acid that ran along the left side
>> > of the tilma miraculously leaving only a faint streak. B) On
>> > November 14, 1921, when a poweful bomb hidden under a bouquet of
>> > flowers was placed on the altar during the Calles persecution. The
>> > metal altar crucifix directly beneath the image was twisted in the
>> > blast and marble decorations and stained-glass windows were
>> > shattered, yet the tilma and the protective glass remained
>> > miraculously unharmed. The mangled cruxifix is now displayed in a
>> > case for all to see how destructive the explosion was. Many believe
>> > these to also be part of its miraculous protection.
>> >
>> What was the titer of the nitric acid?
>
> To be honest, I don't know and I don't (personally) have a resource at
> hand that would tell me. Sorry.
>
Very important detail. I wouldn't let anyone get near cellulose with
nitric acid anyway. No good could come of it.
>>What frame? You said it was unprotected!
>
> "Reading comprehension not your forte?"
> Unprotected for the first 116 years (see above and previous post).
>
That was back in number 3. Do you really think I'm paying a lot of
attention to this? Anyway, I doubt anything placed "behind the altar"
of those old cathedrals could be said to be exposed to the public. Try
going to any alter and touching the big crucifix. Let me know how you
do.
>>
>> Bomb: so?
>
> Guess you would be the only one to survive untouched a blast dirctly
> under you, too.
>
I'm not flat and not every part of me would be parallel to the force of
the bomb.
>>
>> > 5. Optimetrists that have studied the image's eyes have noted the
>> > eyes relect light rays the same as human eyes when they are
>> > examined optometrically.
>> >
>> What do you mean by that?
>
> "Reading comprehension not your forte?"
>
> Has this work been published?
>
> Rahm, Harold, "Am I Not Here?"
> AMI Press, Washington, NJ, 1963
Peer reviewed, no doubt. Never mind. This is as good with regard to
credible evidence as a dead garden slug.
>> >
>> > But since the topic was also the eyes, keep in mind how cautious
>> > and conservative the Church has been about them. The first evidence
>> > of possible relections/images in the images eyes happened in 1929
>> > by Alfonso Marcué Gonzáles while examing negatives of photos. It
>> > wasn't until the conclusions of a commission were presented to the
>> > local archbishop that the phenomenon was even made known on
>> > December 11, 1955 (during a public radion broadcast which happened
>> > to be the eve of the Feast of Our Lady of Guadalupe).
>> >
>> So?
>
> So the Church doesn't allow sloppy or "wham-bam" info out (quick
> slam-dunk studies like the original article posted). It knows enough
> and has the patience to wait for years until the Church is sure of
> Itself and a phenomena even worthy of study or belief. Potato Chips
> would never even get up to plate.
>
It would more correctly be said that the church won't allow the
appropriate tests to be run to confirm or debunk as some of them are
destructive. That's the convenience of claiming that the thing MIGHT be
hoo-doo. One never knows. However, I, for one, never cared.
OldguyTeck
> On Wed, 04 Dec 2002 16:27:46 GMT, Alan Wostenberg <pw...@attbi.com>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >Scout Lady wrote:
> >
> >
> >>>Dil: For an alternative view, read
> >>>http://ufoarea.bravepages.com/aas_guadalupe.html
> >>>
> >> From your reference,
> >>
> >> "Dr. Fiebag founded the CE-IV-Report, a newsletter for abductees, and
he
> >> also organizes an annual meeting called Project Exchange that allows
> >> abductees to network with one another. In addition to CE-IV-Report and
> >> Project Exchange, Dr. Fiebag has also formed an interdisciplinary
> >> organization of Psychiatrists, psychologists and other medical
professionals
> >> who work to help traumatized abductees."
> >
> >Shrinks for abductees?
> >
> >There is a teeny tiny sliver of common ground here. Friebag agrees with
> >the EWTN article quoting Tonsmann the Tilma "has not been painted by
> >human hand." Where we see the Hand of God ufologists see the hands of
> >aliens, and atheists, see only fraud.
>
> Actually I see something that needs further study to find out the
> truth. Rather than claiming to know the truth, I rather seek it out.
So then why don't you use the same standars in these abuse cases...ALL!
Especially those that were ONLY accused.......?
Ed.....................(Oldguyteck)
Alan Ferris
wrote:
Ahh but Ed, why do you have a history of trying to claim their
innocence even after found guilty in a court of law?
Brian Batty
> I was not referring to blotches. I had the whole enchillada of yours in
> mind when I wrote this. Imagine a major religion based on the teachings
> of a supposed human being who left not one iota of evidence that he
> existed. Not even an official report from a Roman agent back to Rome.
> Especially those scared shitless by the cataclysm that followed the
> crucifixion. So strange. A less gullible man might even believe it.
I can "imagine" a few: Judaism which attritibutes an elusive Moses as its
founder; the earliest historical evidence of Muhammad's existance is a
biography written 130 years after his supposed death; Buddhism claims that
proof that Buddha lived because of a belief in testimonies of followers
claiming to have known him, real places that existed in Buddha's narratives,
and belief that the Sangha, the holy order he founded, has remained unbroken
to the present (sounds like Catholicism, doesn't it?). There are more, but
they're not considered "major" religions.
I'm assuming you believe that a vast wealth of historical figures have
existed based on the sole evidence of ancient writings, pictures, and
statues. What more evidence to you want? The reason for the written Gospels
was to leave a record because eyewitnesses and contemporaries were dying
off. As one example: we accept the existance of anceint monarchs the
Egyptians tried very hard to erase more than a 1,000 before Christ. And the
only evidence of acceptance is ancient picture writing and some statuary;
evidence provided by tombs, mummies, etc. not found or long destroyed IF
they even existed. I must assume that if you sincerly hold to to your own
standard equally, you question and/or reject a large section of human
history, people, and events. BTW, most people who ever lived have left "not
one iota of evidence that he [she] existed."
> >> [snip]
> >> >>
> >> >> "The cloak of Our Lady of Guadalupe is not one painting but three
> >> > paintings
> >> >
> >> > This is very old hat, nothing learned here.
> >> >
> >> So what's your point?
> >
> > Like many too enthusiastically wanting to debunk somthing opposite
> > their beliefs, an old fact is falsely insinuated as something new and
> > therefore somehow "validates" the researcher.
> >
> Most debunkers go after extraordinary claims that cannot possibly be
> true. You must admit that the finding directly contradicts the article
> that originated this thread. Honus was replying to that, I believe. He
> was not replying to your more sophisticated version of the "miracle".
>
> >>
> >> >> Garza-Valdes, whose conclusions were published last week in the
> >> >> Mexican magazine Proceso, believes the image of the Virgin is not
> >> >> of supernatural origin, and that Juan Diego is a creation of
> >> >> 17th-century church writings.
> >> >
> >> > So who is the person who died and was buried in the basilica's
> >> > chapel in 1544?
There is the will of Juana Martin of Cuauhtitlan, a relative of Juan Diego.
This nearly contemporary document dated March 11, 1559, mentions Juan Diego
and the Guadalupe miracle.
The Escalada Codex, the Totonac oral tradition of St. Andrew Zozocolco.
Ana de Cristo's testimony, a Spanish Poor Clare who in 1619 passed through
Mexico -- which was then New Spain, on her way to the Philippines.
16th century testimony of an English Lutheran pirate named Miles Philips,
which give direct evidence of the cult stemming from the Guadalupe
apparitions.
> >> Along with his uncle Juan Bernardino who received one of the
> >> > five visions of OLO Guadalupe? Juan Diego live attached to the
> >> > chapel and was custodian of the tilma for 17 years.
> >> >>
> >> >> "We want to stop the canonization of Juan Diego," Garza-Valdes
> >> >> said.
> >> >
> >> > Too late. He's now St. Juan Diego.
> >> >
> >> Reading comprehension not your forte?
> >
> > I...guess so...please explain.
> >
> The statement was made at a point in time prior to juan's cannonization.
> >>
> >> >
> >> > The analyzing by infrared radiation photography of biophysicist Dr.
> >> > Philip Callahan shows different from above. There is no sketch
> >> > underneath any of the paint, which is a prerequisite for almost all
> >> > paintings (more then than now, too). The original blue and pink
> >> > pigments have NOT faded, although the later touch up work has, as I
> >> > previously pointed out.
> >> >
> >> Kindly explain to me how photographing a painting under infrared
> >> radiation would possibly show pencil marks under paint. Do you think
> >> IR is the same as x-ray radiation or some milder version thereof?
> >> That is not what the scientist Honus quoted said was discovered under
> >> IR photography.
> >
> > To the first part, I honestly wouldn't know.
>
> Then you should not post it as a rebuttal. That smacks of deception. I
> know something about the capabilities of infrared and I can tell you it
> does not uncover or penetrate.
Then why have over 4 decades of study by real scientists used infrared?
Most of my resources on the studies always have it in the forefront.
> >> > There seems to be two camps about pre-treatment of the cloth.
> >> > Other studies indicate the tilma cloth was never treated or sized.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > Non-believer studies are too selective and debunk only what they
> >> > THINK they can. Let's keep this in mind:
> >> >
> >> > 1. No mention is made of another particular phenominon of the
> >> > image - it's light diffraction effect. This optical effect causes
> >> > the face of the image to appear white up close and olive at a
> >> > distance. This same effect is found in nature when colors change
> >> > under different angles, such as on the surfaces of bird feathers or
> >> > butterfly scales.
> >> >
> >> So?
> >
> > "Reading comprehension not your forte?"
> > Do you know of other centuries old images or techniques that copy this
> > effect?
> >
> Well, first of all, I am not sure you are right as I have not been to
> see the painting. Take your word for it? No.
Catch up...
Well, it was 18th century...be sure to tell them.
>
> >>What frame? You said it was unprotected!
> >
> > "Reading comprehension not your forte?"
> > Unprotected for the first 116 years (see above and previous post).
> >
> That was back in number 3. Do you really think I'm paying a lot of
> attention to this?
Then why invest in this discussion.
> Anyway, I doubt anything placed "behind the altar"
Above the altar - reading comprehension...
> of those old cathedrals could be said to be exposed to the public. Try
> going to any alter and touching the big crucifix. Let me know how you
> do.
> >>
> >> Bomb: so?
> >
> > Guess you would be the only one to survive untouched a blast dirctly
> > under you, too.
> >
> I'm not flat (peer review?)
> and not every part of me would be parallel to the force of
> the bomb.
> >>
> >> > 5. Optimetrists that have studied the image's eyes have noted the
> >> > eyes relect light rays the same as human eyes when they are
> >> > examined optometrically.
> >> >
> >> What do you mean by that?
> >
> > "Reading comprehension not your forte?"
> >
> > Has this work been published?
> >
> > Rahm, Harold, "Am I Not Here?"
> > AMI Press, Washington, NJ, 1963
>
> Peer reviewed, no doubt. Never mind. This is as good with regard to
> credible evidence as a dead garden slug.
catch up
> >> >
> >> > But since the topic was also the eyes, keep in mind how cautious
> >> > and conservative the Church has been about them. The first evidence
> >> > of possible relections/images in the images eyes happened in 1929
> >> > by Alfonso Marcué Gonzáles while examing negatives of photos. It
> >> > wasn't until the conclusions of a commission were presented to the
> >> > local archbishop that the phenomenon was even made known on
> >> > December 11, 1955 (during a public radion broadcast which happened
> >> > to be the eve of the Feast of Our Lady of Guadalupe).
> >> >
> >> So?
> >
> > So the Church doesn't allow sloppy or "wham-bam" info out (quick
> > slam-dunk studies like the original article posted). It knows enough
> > and has the patience to wait for years until the Church is sure of
> > Itself and a phenomena even worthy of study or belief. Potato Chips
> > would never even get up to plate.
> >
> It would more correctly be said that the church won't allow the
> appropriate tests to be run to confirm or debunk as some of them are
> destructive. That's the convenience of claiming that the thing MIGHT be
> hoo-doo. One never knows. However, I, for one, never cared.
Catch up (not a Church claim to begin with). You invest a lot in a sided
view for someone who "never cared."
CATCH UP:
"Honus" <hon...@MAPSONearthlink.net> wrote in message
news:Y2WH9.7140$kz2.7...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
> "Brian Batty" <bba...@holycross.edu> wrote in message
> news:pzUH9.45294$ic6....@nwrddc01.gnilink.net...
Hello Honus/Luha:
> > "Reading comprehension not your forte?"
> > Do you know of other centuries old images or techniques that copy this
> > effect?
>
> Has anybody bothered to look? And what you call a technique might just be
an
> inherent property of the materials.
In 1979, Americans scientists Philip Callahan and Jody B. Smith studied the
image. "Callahan and Smith showed how the image changes in color slightly
according to the angle of viewing, a phenomenon that is known by the word
iridescence, a technique that cannot be reproduced with human hands."
>
> > > > 2. Previous and much repeated expert examinations, experts
> > > > particulary in painting media, have declared the fabric's loose
weave
> > > > and texture both unsuitable and unprepared for the application of
> > > > paint. The fabric is so thin and of such a loose weave that when
you
> > > > stand behind it, the features of the basilica can be seen clearly as
> > > > through a trellis.
> > > >
> > > So how could it stand three different paintings?
> >
> > Two done over the original.
>
> By who? Was Mary practicing? Who would dare paint different pictures over
> the top of her work? It seems to me that I pointed this out before. What
> were you saying about skeptics picking and choosing to debunk only what
they
> think they can debunk?
Like I observe in many people today, you're thinking too much like a 21st
person, and about what might be strange to YOU. I can best present this from
a quote: The picture painted by supernatural means was not exempt from human
interference. Just as treasured statues and images are adorned with jewels
and golden trinkets, so also the devotees of Our Lady of Guadalupe wished to
express their love and gratitude by the application of various trimmings.
Several additions were painted on the cloth, including angels in the
clouds..." (Cruz).
It's well documented it was touched up with paint by Fray Miguel Sanchez
trying to enhance the image. (Those overlays are showing significant
cracking while the original is in perfect condition.)
Richard Kuhn, a Nobel Prize winner in chemistry, has found that the
[original] image did not have natural, animal or mineral colorings. Given
that there were no synthetic colorings in 1531, the image is inexplicable.
>
> > > Bomb: so?
> >
> > Guess you would be the only one to survive untouched a blast dirctly
under
> > you, too.
>
> I take issue with the term "directly under" until I see that the image was
> suspended in the air (not miraculously) rather than say, attached to a
wall.
> What I can't concede is that there was no damage from the blast. I need to
> see some sort of evidence if I'm to accept that as a miracle. What kind of
> shape was the wall in around the image? Was the wall blackened, etc.
That'd
> be a place to start.
Why should you need the singular privilege of direct evidence? (and I stated
the blasted iron crucifix is on display). Why wouldn't post WW I reports and
witnesses be enough, or the eyewitness after-effects by thousands of
Mexicans? This wasn't the middles ages, it was the 1920's. This is like the
same kind of thinking used to claim the Holocaust is made-up Jewish
propaganda amd never happened because you claim no direct proof that you can
currently see. You can't "concede it" because you choose not to believe that
could have happened. Seeing how the image is hung now would be no help as
the image is now housed in a newly built basilica (the old one being too
structerely unsound).
>
> > > > 5. Optimetrists that have studied the image's eyes have noted the
> > > > eyes relect light rays the same as human eyes when they are examined
> > > > optometrically.
> > > >
> > > What do you mean by that?
> >
> > "Reading comprehension not your forte?"
> >
> > Has this work been published?
> >
> > Rahm, Harold, "Am I Not Here?"
> > AMI Press, Washington, NJ, 1963
>
> > > > But since the topic was also the eyes, keep in mind how cautious and
> > > > conservative the Church has been about them. The first evidence of
> > > > possible relections/images in the images eyes happened in 1929 by
> > > > Alfonso Marcué Gonzáles while examing negatives of photos. It
wasn't
> > > > until the conclusions of a commission were presented to the local
> > > > archbishop that the phenomenon was even made known on December 11,
> > > > 1955 (during a public radion broadcast which happened to be the eve
of
> > > > the Feast of Our Lady of Guadalupe).
> > > >
> > > So?
> >
> > So the Church doesn't allow sloppy or "wham-bam" info out (quick
slam-dunk
> > studies like the original article posted). It knows enough and has the
> > patience to wait for years until the Church is sure of Itself and a
> > phenomena even worthy of study or belief.
>
> That's one way of looking at it. Another way of looking at it would be
that
> they wait until any witnesses are dead, and the matter can't be truly and
> honestly investigated. But that's just cynical.
Yes it is. One, 1929 was simply the first. There were some after, and I
doubt most if any of the "discoverers" were dead. Two, it wasn't the Church
that found or put any early claims on the eye reflection discovery.
> > Potato Chips would never even
> > get up to plate.
>
Luha
> You need to catch up; you're behind. I provided for you at bottom of
> post.
>
What are you saying about my behind? You're not one of those, are you?
>
>> I was not referring to blotches. I had the whole enchillada of yours
>> in mind when I wrote this. Imagine a major religion based on the
>> teachings of a supposed human being who left not one iota of evidence
>> that he existed. Not even an official report from a Roman agent back
>> to Rome. Especially those scared shitless by the cataclysm that
>> followed the crucifixion. So strange. A less gullible man might
>> even believe it.
>
> I can "imagine" a few: Judaism which attritibutes an elusive Moses as
> its founder; the earliest historical evidence of Muhammad's existance
> is a biography written 130 years after his supposed death; Buddhism
> claims that proof that Buddha lived because of a belief in testimonies
> of followers claiming to have known him, real places that existed in
> Buddha's narratives, and belief that the Sangha, the holy order he
> founded, has remained unbroken to the present (sounds like
> Catholicism, doesn't it?). There are more, but they're not considered
> "major" religions.
>
Also, none of the others you've cited claim divinity.
> I'm assuming you believe that a vast wealth of historical figures have
> existed based on the sole evidence of ancient writings, pictures, and
> statues. What more evidence to you want?
There is much such evidence that refers to mythical entities as well.
Please be specific. Challenge me with a particular person and I will
tell you if I believe s/he existed and why so.
The reason for the written
> Gospels was to leave a record because eyewitnesses and contemporaries
> were dying off. As one example: we accept the existance of anceint
> monarchs the Egyptians tried very hard to erase more than a 1,000
> before Christ. And the only evidence of acceptance is ancient picture
> writing and some statuary; evidence provided by tombs, mummies, etc.
> not found or long destroyed IF they even existed. I must assume that
> if you sincerly hold to to your own standard equally, you question
> and/or reject a large section of human history, people, and events.
> BTW, most people who ever lived have left "not one iota of evidence
> that he [she] existed."
>
You're right. As a matter of fact, I don't care whether or not the
people you're referring to existed or not. The difference is that those
other people did not make a claim of divinity. So why should I spend
the rest of eternity in torment if I don't take the word of people who
didn't know any more than you do whether or not someone like that ever
existed?
[snip]
>> >> >
>> >> > So who is the person who died and was buried in the basilica's
>> >> > chapel in 1544?
>
> There is the will of Juana Martin of Cuauhtitlan, a relative of Juan
> Diego. This nearly contemporary document dated March 11, 1559,
> mentions Juan Diego and the Guadalupe miracle.
> The Escalada Codex, the Totonac oral tradition of St. Andrew
> Zozocolco. Ana de Cristo's testimony, a Spanish Poor Clare who in 1619
> passed through Mexico -- which was then New Spain, on her way to the
> Philippines. 16th century testimony of an English Lutheran pirate
> named Miles Philips, which give direct evidence of the cult stemming
> from the Guadalupe apparitions.
>
Really, Brian, I don't care whether or not juan ever existed. He is
merely a bystander (at best) in all this. We were talking about the
painting, no?
>
[snip]
>> >> >
>> >> Kindly explain to me how photographing a painting under infrared
>> >> radiation would possibly show pencil marks under paint. Do you
>> >> think IR is the same as x-ray radiation or some milder version
>> >> thereof? That is not what the scientist Honus quoted said was
>> >> discovered under IR photography.
>> >
>> > To the first part, I honestly wouldn't know.
>>
>> Then you should not post it as a rebuttal. That smacks of deception.
>> I know something about the capabilities of infrared and I can tell
>> you it does not uncover or penetrate.
>
> Then why have over 4 decades of study by real scientists used
> infrared?
Because it highlights possible differences. I would imagine that they
used every wavelength of light that the rcc would permit them to use,
not merely infrared. What I was trying to address is the misleading
inference that infrared examination of a painting would reveal whether
or not a crude drawing was made in charcoal before paint was applied.
That is not true unless the paint is very thin and, then, you wouldn't
need infrared light to see it anyway.
Most of my resources on the studies always have it in the
> forefront.
>
So? I asked you to explain the science behind it, not to tell me that
many people had followed the same road.
[snip]
>
> Catch up...
>
I'm pedaling as fast as I can. So far, you haven't done a very good job
of giving the data I need to see things your way.
>> >
[snip]
>> >
>> Very important detail. I wouldn't let anyone get near cellulose with
>> nitric acid anyway. No good could come of it.
>
> Well, it was 18th century...be sure to tell them.
>
Do you often resort to idiocy when asked a direct question? Do you
think these people were ignorant of what acids were and their effects on
materials? Maybe it's your turn to catch up.
>>
>> >>What frame? You said it was unprotected!
>> >
>> > "Reading comprehension not your forte?"
>> > Unprotected for the first 116 years (see above and previous post).
>> >
>> That was back in number 3. Do you really think I'm paying a lot of
>> attention to this?
>
> Then why invest in this discussion.
>
Just loves it when ignorami abuse science to try to establish some
idiotic claim to divinity. Luha loves to debunk that shit. Hows is
Luha doin'?
>> Anyway, I doubt anything placed "behind the altar"
>
> Above the altar - reading comprehension...
>
In mid-air? Another Steinbeck, you are not.
>> of those old cathedrals could be said to be exposed to the public.
>> Try going to any alter and touching the big crucifix. Let me know
>> how you do.
>> >>
>> >> Bomb: so?
>> >
>> > Guess you would be the only one to survive untouched a blast
>> > dirctly under you, too.
>> >
>> I'm not flat (peer review?)
>
>> and not every part of me would be parallel to the force of
>> the bomb.
>> >>
>> >> > 5. Optimetrists that have studied the image's eyes have noted
>> >> > the eyes relect light rays the same as human eyes when they are
>> >> > examined optometrically.
>> >> >
>> >> What do you mean by that?
>> >
>> > "Reading comprehension not your forte?"
>> >
>> > Has this work been published?
>> >
>> > Rahm, Harold, "Am I Not Here?"
>> > AMI Press, Washington, NJ, 1963
>>
>> Peer reviewed, no doubt. Never mind. This is as good with regard to
>> credible evidence as a dead garden slug.
>
> catch up
>
Trying. You've done nothing but post nothing new.
>> >> >
>> >> > But since the topic was also the eyes, keep in mind how cautious
>> >> > and conservative the Church has been about them. The first
>> >> > evidence of possible relections/images in the images eyes
>> >> > happened in 1929 by Alfonso Marcué Gonzáles while examing
>> >> > negatives of photos. It wasn't until the conclusions of a
>> >> > commission were presented to the local archbishop that the
>> >> > phenomenon was even made known on December 11, 1955 (during a
>> >> > public radion broadcast which happened to be the eve of the
>> >> > Feast of Our Lady of Guadalupe).
>> >> >
>> >> So?
>> >
>> > So the Church doesn't allow sloppy or "wham-bam" info out (quick
>> > slam-dunk studies like the original article posted). It knows
>> > enough and has the patience to wait for years until the Church is
>> > sure of Itself and a phenomena even worthy of study or belief.
>> > Potato Chips would never even get up to plate.
>> >
>> It would more correctly be said that the church won't allow the
>> appropriate tests to be run to confirm or debunk as some of them are
>> destructive. That's the convenience of claiming that the thing MIGHT
>> be hoo-doo. One never knows. However, I, for one, never cared.
> Catch up (not a Church claim to begin with). You invest a lot in a
> sided view for someone who "never cared."
>
You expect to go through life unchallenged? Write your god and tell him
I shouldn't exist.
Catch up, Brian. We're not the same.
Believe what you want, Brian. Just don't expect the rest of us to
follow suit.
>> > "Reading comprehension not your forte?"
>> > Do you know of other centuries old images or techniques that copy
>> > this effect?
>>
>> Has anybody bothered to look? And what you call a technique might
>> just be
> an
>> inherent property of the materials.
>
> In 1979, Americans scientists Philip Callahan and Jody B. Smith
> studied the image. "Callahan and Smith showed how the image changes in
> color slightly according to the angle of viewing, a phenomenon that is
> known by the word iridescence, a technique that cannot be reproduced
> with human hands."
>
This has already been posted and it is not correct about irridescence.
It may have been true in 1979, although I doubt it.
And how do you determine this?
> Richard Kuhn, a Nobel Prize winner in chemistry, has found that the
> [original] image did not have natural, animal or mineral colorings.
> Given that there were no synthetic colorings in 1531, the image is
> inexplicable.
>
I find this passage to be incredible given no description of the tests
run and no refernce to any scientific papers given. Moreover, Kuhn's
expertise was biochemistry, not coatings or natural materials.
Hitler survived several bombings. I guess he was holy too.
Answer the question, Brian. Don't just shilly-shally along asking
stupid questions. Where is your peer-reviewed data? If there are none,
why not?
> "According to Javier Torroella, the ophthalmologist who examined the
> eyes of the Virgin [1951], not only was there the reflection of a
> human bust in both the Virgin's eyes, but the reflection was
> positioned in ***exactly the same way reflections are seen on a human
> cornea-a phenomenon called the Purkinje-Sanson principle, which causes
> reflections in the eye to be split in three due to the eye's
> curvature.*** This would imply that the eyes of the Virgin's image
> are curved exactly the way the human eye is curved. These findings
> were confirmed by two more ophthalmologists, in 1958 and 1975." ( My
> note: Dr. Rafael Torija-Lavoignet published his study of the
> Purkinje-Sanson effect in 1958)
>
> Sorry, no current peer-review. As I stated, this part of the
> phenomenon seems to have been passed over by skeptics.
>
Rightly so. A judge would correctly call the above hearsay because, not
only is it a second person writing about the observations, but no
corroboration is offered. The only reference we're given is for the
original paper for the P-S Effect. Not worth a lot.
Honus
> Hello Honus/Luha:
First of all, let me say that I'm deeply offended by that crack, and I'm
damned serious. I don't post under any names other than my own. Ever. I
don't know what makes you think that I'm posting under the name Luha as well
as Honus, and I barely care. I'm more concerned with the implied accusation
of deceit, and as far as I'm concerned you owe me an apology. Either that,
or trot out some evidence.
> That's an approval of a mass specifically for the shroud. It's not unusual
> for other ancient, man-made sacrementals/devotional items of the Church.
The
> authenticity of the shroud was usually one of personal belief - from
peasant
> to cleric to pope. But there was never an official Chruch endorsement of
its
> authenticity. And devotion to man-made religious images is a well known
> accepted Catholic practice. Actually, if you finish reading the full entry
> that you quoted from the online Catholic resource you'll find this a
> distinct belief of its non-divine status:
So the Church never -officially- declared the Shroud to be authentic and
miraculous, but various Popes believed it to be so, and authorized Masses
for it, etc.. I call that a neat way of covering your ass. And I did read
the whole article. I guess I should apologize for assuming that since some
Popes accepted its authenticity, it naturally followed that the pious were
expected to believe it as well.
> > > Do you know of other centuries old images or techniques that copy this
> > > effect?
> >
> > Has anybody bothered to look? And what you call a technique might just
be
> an
> > inherent property of the materials.
>
> In 1979, Americans scientists Philip Callahan and Jody B. Smith studied
the
> image. "Callahan and Smith showed how the image changes in color slightly
> according to the angle of viewing, a phenomenon that is known by the word
> iridescence, a technique that cannot be reproduced with human hands."
Again, what you call technique might just be a natural result of the
materials used. Iridescence is found throughout nature. Big deal. It's not
miraculous. Consider this: if the artist who painted the Guadalupe image had
immediately turned around and painted a portrait of his wife using the same
materials, we'd have the exact same "miracles" associated with the second
picture. Really, this isn't special at all. And besides, referring to a
"slight change in color" as iridescence borders on deceitful. It may be
technically true, but then that would make my wife's ass iridescent. It
changes "slightly in color too", "according to the angle of viewing".
And how did they "show" that the image is iridescent? All anyone would have
to do to observe that would be to take a step to either side. Big deal. They
"showed" nothing.
On top of that, they claim that the tilma was unprepared as a painting
surface. I provided you with information from an art restoration expert who
said that the tilma had been primered. What about that?
While you're at it, tell me what kind of scientists Callahan and Smith are,
if you know. I'm curious.
> > > > So how could it stand three different paintings?
> > >
> > > Two done over the original.
> >
> > By who? Was Mary practicing? Who would dare paint different pictures
over
> > the top of her work? It seems to me that I pointed this out before. What
> > were you saying about skeptics picking and choosing to debunk only what
> they
> > think they can debunk?
>
> Like I observe in many people today, you're thinking too much like a 21st
> person, and about what might be strange to YOU. I can best present this
from
> a quote: The picture painted by supernatural means was not exempt from
human
> interference. Just as treasured statues and images are adorned with
jewels
> and golden trinkets, so also the devotees of Our Lady of Guadalupe wished
to
> express their love and gratitude by the application of various trimmings.
> Several additions were painted on the cloth, including angels in the
> clouds..." (Cruz).
That's crap. My objection isn't rejectable on the grounds that what makes
sense to a 21st century man wouldn't stand to reason four or five hundred
years ago. We're not talking about "touching up" the image, or adding a few
motifs to it. The assertion was that there were two different pictures
underneath the miraculous one, not things that were added later. The
"miracle" is covering the other two. Why? Explain to me why Mary would have
done that. If she was giving us a miracle to venerate, why would there be
paintings underneath the final one? Again, was she practicing? It doesn't
stand to reason regardless of what century you live in.
> It's well documented it was touched up with paint by Fray Miguel Sanchez
> trying to enhance the image. (Those overlays are showing significant
> cracking while the original is in perfect condition.)
That's odd. I've found sites on the web that say that the image was painted
over -because- it was no longer in pristine condition.
> Richard Kuhn, a Nobel Prize winner in chemistry, has found that the
> [original] image did not have natural, animal or mineral colorings. Given
> that there were no synthetic colorings in 1531, the image is inexplicable.
Then it' s made with -un- natural colorings? Elements unknown to mankind?
Please explain that one in more detail; it doesn't parse. I've got more to
say on -that- particular score, but I'll save my wad for later.
> > > > Bomb: so?
> > >
> > > Guess you would be the only one to survive untouched a blast dirctly
> under
> > > you, too.
> >
> > I take issue with the term "directly under" until I see that the image
was
> > suspended in the air (not miraculously) rather than say, attached to a
> wall.
> > What I can't concede is that there was no damage from the blast. I need
to
> > see some sort of evidence if I'm to accept that as a miracle. What kind
of
> > shape was the wall in around the image? Was the wall blackened, etc.
> That'd
> > be a place to start.
>
> Why should you need the singular privilege of direct evidence? (and I
stated
> the blasted iron crucifix is on display). Why wouldn't post WW I reports
and
> witnesses be enough, or the eyewitness after-effects by thousands of
> Mexicans? This wasn't the middles ages, it was the 1920's.
Singular privilege? The question is why should I accept the word of the
pious in this case, while you (I daresay) freely reject the testimony of the
pious of other religions regarding -their- miracles. Unless you maintain
that their miracles are the work of the devil. There have been
"miracles" -in the last year-, attested to by thousands, that I freely
reject.
> This is like the
> same kind of thinking used to claim the Holocaust is made-up Jewish
> propaganda amd never happened because you claim no direct proof that you
can
> currently see.
Well, my initial impulse to that crack was to tell you to kiss my ass. It
was also my second and third impulse, so I'm going with it. That's way below
the belt, and if you don't know it you surely should. Comparing me to a
Holocaust denier because I don't accept your claims? Claims that you can't
even explain properly? Bite me.
> You can't "concede it" because you choose not to believe that
> could have happened.
Wrong. I can't concede it because I have no compelling evidence to cause me
to accept it. Again, it's bald assertion. I can't believe -every- miracle
that comes down the pike, and neither can you.
> Seeing how the image is hung now would be no help as
> the image is now housed in a newly built basilica (the old one being too
> structerely unsound).
Use your head. Why would I care how it's hung NOW? I used the word "was". I
want to know how the image WAS suspended. Was the image on a wall, with the
bomb under a crucifix hanging on the wall beneath the picture, etc. Assuming
that it was hanging on a wall in some fashion, was the area around the image
blackened, including the area -above- it? Why do you have such a problem
with my wanting to examine all of the facts at hand, rather than essentially
just accept your word for it? Such scrutiny would only serve to support your
case...one would think.
> > > > > 5. Optimetrists that have studied the image's eyes have noted the
> > > > > eyes relect light rays the same as human eyes when they are
examined
> > > > > optometrically.
> > > > >
> > > > What do you mean by that?
> > >
> > > "Reading comprehension not your forte?"
> > >
> > > Has this work been published?
> > >
> > > Rahm, Harold, "Am I Not Here?"
> > > AMI Press, Washington, NJ, 1963
> >
> > Not impressed. We'd all agree that publication doesn't mean squat, I
> think.
> > (Take a hard look at the books on theology at your local library to see
> what
> > I mean.) How about some peer-review?
>
> This is what took me a long time after getting the message after work. I
had
> to ponder over your response for a while.
Yeah, well you didn't ponder over it -nearly- long enough.
> At first I could only conjecture
> what you meant (I thought you meant it was beneath us on a research level
or
> because of the date). But now I think I see where you're coming from.
Your
> local library doesn't carry a copy so it's not of any value? (based on
this,
> your worlview must be bleak indeed). Does your local libary have a rare
> Gutenberg Bible? (some do). If so, are other libraries worthless? If I'm
> looking for a Catholic resource, I'll go to a Catholic library (I'm lucky
> enough to have 2 catholic college/univerisities where I live, one of them
> the oldest in the NE and where I work, so I'm lucky with resources).
Though
> not the above book listed, I did find other published studies by Rahm
listed
> at Harvard if that means anything.
That isn't even close to what I meant. The mere fact that someone has
managed to publish a piece of work means nothing. I'm not impressed by the
fact that someone saw fit to put something in print. If you perused the
shelves at your local library, you'd see what I mean. There's a lot of crap
out there. Publication in and of itself doesn't validate what's between the
covers. Therefore, I'm not impressed by the fact that a true believer
published a book. I want peer-review, which it appears you also don't
understand.
> "According to Javier Torroella, the ophthalmologist who examined the eyes
of
> the Virgin [1951], not only was there the reflection of a human bust in
both
> the Virgin's eyes, but the reflection was positioned in ***exactly the
same
> way reflections are seen on a human cornea-a phenomenon called the
> Purkinje-Sanson principle, which causes reflections in the eye to be split
> in three due to the eye's curvature.***
Split in three? You're going to have to explain that one as well. (Good
luck, by the way.) Off of a curved surface the proportions of a reflection
would be altered, yes...but what's this "split in three" stuff? Again, it
doesn't parse. Explain it to me. You believe in the miracle of the tilma and
cite this as evidence, so you must be able to. And no looking it up. ;)
> This would imply that the eyes of
> the Virgin's image are curved exactly the way the human eye is curved.
These
> findings were confirmed by two more ophthalmologists, in 1958 and 1975." (
> My note: Dr. Rafael Torija-Lavoignet published his study of the
> Purkinje-Sanson effect in 1958)
>
> Sorry, no current peer-review. As I stated, this part of the phenomenon
> seems to have been passed over by skeptics.
-I'm- not passing it over. And the reason that there's no current (or past)
peer review isn't the "fault" of the skeptics; your scientists need to
submit their work for publication in the appropriate publications. Then
we'll have some peer review. In the meantime, all we have is, again, bald
assertion. Would you like to meet some Hindu scientists that make the same
sort of claims regarding milk-drinking statues? (Witnessed, by the way, by
perhaps tens of thousands.)
Pray tell, how much have they done to discourage it, or investigate it
further? It doesn't sound like much.
And another thing that I'm curious about; do you believe that the Guadalupe
image is an accurate representation of what Mary looked like? Not just her
dress, but her features.
Brian Batty
"Honus" <hon...@MAPSONearthlink.net> wrote in message
> "Brian Batty" <bba...@holycross.edu> wrote in message
> news:G6NI9.15140$903....@nwrddc02.gnilink.net...
>
> > Hello Honus/Luha:
>
> First of all, let me say that I'm deeply offended by that crack, and I'm
> damned serious. I don't post under any names other than my own. Ever. I
> don't know what makes you think that I'm posting under the name Luha as
well
> as Honus, and I barely care. I'm more concerned with the implied
accusation
> of deceit, and as far as I'm concerned you owe me an apology. Either that,
> or trot out some evidence.
It was not meant to be neither a crack or insult or anything close to that
nature and no insinuations or accusations were being made. You replied to a
post made to the user named Luha and you both had a similar stance; I
thought I was killing two birds with one stone by addressing you both
together.
> That's crap. My objection isn't rejectable on the grounds that what makes
> sense to a 21st century man wouldn't stand to reason four or five hundred
> years ago.
Yes it is, and it's officially labeled by the educated as "Presentism,"
noun. "The application of current ideals, morals, and standards to
historical figures and events"
or as "The New York Times Magazine" once defined it: "...a historian sees
events in the past through the prism of present-day standards, for example,
Thomas Jefferson is often judged harshly as a sexist even though the notion
of complete equality between the sexes was almost unthinkable in his era.
Gordon-Reed calls it the 'why wasn't Jefferson like Alan Alda' question."
Honus
>
> "Honus" <hon...@MAPSONearthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:a5yK9.140$jN4....@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
> > "Brian Batty" <bba...@holycross.edu> wrote in message
> > news:G6NI9.15140$903....@nwrddc02.gnilink.net...
> >
> > > Hello Honus/Luha:
> >
> > First of all, let me say that I'm deeply offended by that crack, and I'm
> > damned serious. I don't post under any names other than my own. Ever. I
> > don't know what makes you think that I'm posting under the name Luha as
> well
> > as Honus, and I barely care. I'm more concerned with the implied
> accusation
> > of deceit, and as far as I'm concerned you owe me an apology. Either
that,
> > or trot out some evidence.
>
> It was not meant to be neither a crack or insult or anything close to that
> nature and no insinuations or accusations were being made. You replied to
a
> post made to the user named Luha and you both had a similar stance; I
> thought I was killing two birds with one stone by addressing you both
> together.
Might I suggest that in the future you use the word -and- instead of "/" ?
Does "Hello Brian/Dickhead" look like an insult or an salutation to two
different people?
> > That's crap. My objection isn't rejectable on the grounds that what
makes
> > sense to a 21st century man wouldn't stand to reason four or five
hundred
> > years ago.
>
> Yes it is, and it's officially labeled by the educated as "Presentism,"
> noun. "The application of current ideals, morals, and standards to
> historical figures and events"
> or as "The New York Times Magazine" once defined it: "...a historian sees
> events in the past through the prism of present-day standards, for
example,
> Thomas Jefferson is often judged harshly as a sexist even though the
notion
> of complete equality between the sexes was almost unthinkable in his era.
> Gordon-Reed calls it the 'why wasn't Jefferson like Alan Alda' question."
I'm familiar with the concept. I'm also familiar with the fact that it
doesn't universally apply. Since you didn't seem to get it the first time,
here it is again:
That's crap. My objection isn't rejectable on the grounds that what makes
sense to a 21st century man wouldn't stand to reason four or five hundred
years ago. We're not talking about "touching up" the image, or adding a few
motifs to it. The assertion was that there were two different pictures
underneath the miraculous one, not things that were added later. The
"miracle" is covering the other two. Why? Explain to me why Mary would have
done that. If she was giving us a miracle to venerate, why would there be
paintings underneath the final one? Again, was she practicing? It doesn't
stand to reason regardless of what century you live in.
You tried to make it sound as if we were discussing images added later on.
We aren't, and you're dissembling. Again, some things don't stand to reason
in any age. If I'm a worker of miracles "building" a house, I don't build
one and destroy it 95%, build another and destroy -it- 95%, and then create
the permanent "miracle" on top of it. I do the miracle first. Boom.
Otherwise, when the people come and examine it later it they won't find
evidence that suggests that it wasn't miraculous after all, which is what we
have with the tilma image if in fact there're two other images beneath the
visible one. People have been exposing miracles as frauds long before
Guadalupe, and reason and common sense aren't new notions. There may be
reasons why Mary did what she did, but you haven't presented any. On the
other hand, I've pointed out that human artists (again, since -before-
Guadalupe) have been in the practice of painting over the surfaces of
inferior works. If you want to cling to the notion that Mary had some
obscure reason for going out of her way to make the tilma image look like a
human artifact, that's your choice. I on the other hand will accept the
evidence for where it points...human manufacture. Especially in light of the
fact that you can't provide me with -any- support for your claims, which it
turns out aren't even your claims after all.
You snipped a whole list of questions that I asked of you. If you don't want
to support your claims, why make them in the first place? And if you don't
understand the so-called science behind these claims, maybe you oughtn't
make them in the first place.
Since you don't want to answer some of those questions, and I don't blame
you since they were -very- much loaded ones, I'll do it for you.
I asked for the credentials of your scientists, Philip Callahan and Jody B.
Smith. Callahan is a biophysicist, and Smith is a professor of -philosophy-.
Callahan I'll accept as being qualified, and credentialed. But Smith? I'm
not impressed. Perhaps she has some credentials, but they're not evident. So
we have my art restoration expert, whom you choose to ignore entirely,
versus your dynamic duo. Mine found a primered surface, while yours claimed
to have found no initial preparation of the tilma. I'd say my expert and his
opinion carries more weight than yours. After all, it -is- his field of
expertise.
I pointed out that pro-Guadalupe sites on the web mention that the
touching-up was due to degradation of the original, in spite of your claim
that the original is pristine and in perfect condition. You ignored this.
That's okay; one thing that I've learned is that believers in miracles never
agree on the details...even the most important ones. I'm not surprised at
that particular discrepancy; in fact, I half expected it.
I pointed out that if the artist had immediately painted another picture
with all of the same materials, we'd have the same effects on the second
portrait. You ignored that as well, which doesn't surprise me. My
supposition makes sense and stands to reason, but it's not an act of faith.
Therefore, it must not be valid.
You said:
"Richard Kuhn, a Nobel Prize winner in chemistry, has found that the
[original] image did not have natural, animal or mineral colorings. Given
that there were no synthetic colorings in 1531, the image is inexplicable."
My sources indicate that this isn't entirely correct. The reason that you
couldn't elaborate on that when I asked was because that line of yours is
taken almost word for word from someone else's writing, along with several
other lines from your posts. (Including typos.) Shame you. You can't explain
it because you don't know anymore of the details than the article that you
cribbed it from gave. I've found a web source that says that Kuhn analyzed
two fibers from the tilma, and found that they were neither "animal,
vegetable or mineral". That's quite a bit different than what
your -anattributed- quote says. According to the later claim, which I also
doubt, Kuhn is saying that the tilma itself isn't of this world. I see no
reason whatsoever to believe -either- claim. I asked you if what "you" meant
by "your" quote was
"Then it' s made with -un- natural colorings? Elements unknown to mankind?
Please explain that one in more detail; it doesn't parse. I've got more to
say on -that- particular score, but I'll save my wad for later."
Well, which is it? Is it the tilma that's made of matter unknown to man, or
the paint? I haven't been able to find any thing on Kuhn's examination of
the tilma from any un-biased sources. For all I know, he never even looked
at the thing, so I can't tell which he claimed was "unknown to man". (At
least he really existed.) I suspect that he didn't say either thing that's
attributed to him.
You were scornful of the fact that I discounted the testimony of your
catholic witnesses, but ignored me when I pointed out that you feel free to
ignore eyewitness statements from -other- religions...why? I'm supposed to
accept yours, but not theirs?
And as for the Purkinje-Sanson principle, which in fact I do understand, you
didn't bother trying to explain that either. I'd say it's because you don't
know what it is. You took quotes from someone else's work without
understanding what they're saying.
And of course, you're still letting your comparison of me to holocaust
deniers stand since you didn't bother to address the fact that I was
offended by it. So you can still kiss my ass.
The really ironic thing is that you ridiculed my web site for having cheesy
non miracles on it, when your so-called miracle is of exactly the same
nature. I've looked at some of these images in the eyes, and they're no
different than the images of Mary in the barks of trees.
Luha
news:a5yK9.140$jN4....@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net:
> "Brian Batty" <bba...@holycross.edu> wrote in message
> news:G6NI9.15140$903....@nwrddc02.gnilink.net...
>
>> Hello Honus/Luha:
>
> First of all, let me say that I'm deeply offended by that crack, and
> I'm damned serious. I don't post under any names other than my own.
> Ever. I don't know what makes you think that I'm posting under the
> name Luha as well as Honus, and I barely care. I'm more concerned with
> the implied accusation of deceit, and as far as I'm concerned you owe
> me an apology. Either that, or trot out some evidence.
>
Hey, Honus, you could do a lot worse! Seriously, this guy's a joke. He
replied to my particular stance by telling me that the relic's survival
of a bomb proves it's miraculous. He stopped responding to me when I
pointed out that the same could be said of Hitler.
>> That's an approval of a mass specifically for the shroud. It's not
[snip]
Luha
>
> "Honus" <hon...@MAPSONearthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:a5yK9.140$jN4....@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
>> "Brian Batty" <bba...@holycross.edu> wrote in message
>> news:G6NI9.15140$903....@nwrddc02.gnilink.net...
>>
>> > Hello Honus/Luha:
>>
>> First of all, let me say that I'm deeply offended by that crack, and
>> I'm damned serious. I don't post under any names other than my own.
>> Ever. I don't know what makes you think that I'm posting under the
>> name Luha as
> well
>> as Honus, and I barely care. I'm more concerned with the implied
> accusation
>> of deceit, and as far as I'm concerned you owe me an apology. Either
>> that, or trot out some evidence.
>
> It was not meant to be neither a crack or insult or anything close to
> that nature and no insinuations or accusations were being made. You
> replied to a post made to the user named Luha and you both had a
> similar stance; I thought I was killing two birds with one stone by
> addressing you both together.
>
As it proves, you killed nothing or no one. Does that depress you?
>
>> That's crap. My objection isn't rejectable on the grounds that what
>> makes sense to a 21st century man wouldn't stand to reason four or
>> five hundred years ago.
>
> Yes it is, and it's officially labeled by the educated as
> "Presentism," noun. "The application of current ideals, morals, and
> standards to historical figures and events"
> or as "The New York Times Magazine" once defined it: "...a historian
> sees events in the past through the prism of present-day standards,
> for example, Thomas Jefferson is often judged harshly as a sexist even
> though the notion of complete equality between the sexes was almost
> unthinkable in his era. Gordon-Reed calls it the 'why wasn't Jefferson
> like Alan Alda' question."
>
Brian, don't you know it's bad manners to delete text without marking
the place? This is especially bad manners when you delete the text that
you can't deal with or are actively misinterpreting.
Honus
HA! I missed that, and it's a good thing, too. I almost used the exact same
line myself!