Lady of Guadalupe miracle debunked

[Melchisedec]

[b]Socrates[/b] had introduced me to the miracle of the Lady of Guadalupe. When I first saw bullet points about this image I was immediately fascinated. I wanted to find out what scientist have studied this image and what have their results have been. Alot of the sites I was visiting were using the analysis that took place in 1936 by Richard Kuhn. Kuhn said that "colouring was not from a mineral, vegetable, or animal source".Sites also noted of a 1979 NASA analysis by an unknown person who could not explain it and was said to have had his life changed by this image. I could not confirm that ever happened or not. But more recent studies of the image has yielded more earthly proof of its origins. The Lady of Guadalupe is a piece of art created by man.

You see , every time there are paranormal claims made there are scientist eager to study them. One of these organizations is the Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal. After analyzing the image in 1982 and 1985 they have discovered brush strokes and paint that was used to make the image. Even during the time of its discovery it was explained away:

[i]
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.
[/i]

As far as the reflection in the eyes of the Lady, it said that the indian she visited is in the reflection. Well I have a picture of that supposed reflection and it bears no resemblence to an old man stretching his arms out. What do you think?

[img]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/0/06/Foo.jpg[/img]

The power of the Lady of Guadalupe resides inside the hearts of those who feel its a miracle or a sign from god. This image has been the tool to convert thousands ifnot maybe millions of people. The story is where the power resides. The myth. But it is a very explainable peice of art. Alot of times, people tend to dumb down all of humanity. Lets not forget all the marvels that are still difficult to explain. The pyramids, easter island, stone hedge. We are capable of marvelous things.


[url="http://www.csicop.org/sb/2002-06/guadalupe.html"]Report on Lady of Guadalupe Image[/url]

[Fidei Defensor]

How interesting it is that they dont try to disprove the fact that it withstood a bomb blast, and floods

[Guest Aluigi]

the image was studied by an optometrist who concluded that that's exactly the way a human eye would reflect the person

if it was an obvious image of a man with his arms stretched out, that wouldn't be real obviously, someone could paint a small man in an eye if they wanted to.

[IcePrincessKRS]

This is supposed to prove something?

[Archangel]

How does science explain its existence after 500 years?

The natural fiber it is made out of should have deteriorated by now.

[musturde]

People who create sites like those claim we believe the most absurd things but it's interesting how they try to dissaprove what we believe in the weirdest ways.

[Socrates]

Here is the analysis of Dr. Philip Callahan, research biologist at the University of Florida, also a painter photographer, and scientific writer, who studied the image under infared light:

"Th mantle is a dark torquois blue . . This presents aninexplicable phenomenon because all such pigments are semi-permanent and known to be subject to considerable fadingwith time, especially in hot climates. The Indian Maya blue wall paintings are already badly faded. The blue mantle, however, is bright enough to have been laid last week. [It is this incredible brightness of the colors in this protrait that impresses and astonishes nearly every visitor to the shrine of Our Lady of Guadalupe in Mexico City today.]

The most notable feature of the robe is its remarkable luminosity. It is highly reflective of visible radiation yet transparent to the infared rays. . . . As in the case of the blue mantle, the shadowing of the pink robe is blended into the paint layer and no drawing or sketch is evident under the pink pigment. . . .

The pink pigment appears to be inexplicable. . . . One of the really strange aspects of this painting is that not only is the tilma not sized, but there is absolutely no protective coating of varnish. Despite this unusual lack of any protective overcoating, the robe and mantle are as bright and colored as if the paint was newly laid.

The head of the Virgin of Guadalupe is one of the great masterpieces of artistic facial expression. In subtleness of form, simplicity of execution, hue and coloring, it has few equals among the masterpieces of the world. Furthermore, ther are no portratits that I have ever observed which are executed in a similar manner. . .

ONe of the truly marveous and inexplicable tecniques utilized to give realism to the painting is the way it takes advantage of the unsized tilma to give it depth and render it lifelike. This is particularly evident in the mouth, where the coarse fiber of the fabirc is raised above the level of the rest of the weave and follows perfectly the ridge at the top of the lip. The same rough imperfections occur below the highlighted area on the left cheek and to the right and below the the right eye. I would consider it impossible that any human painter could select a tilma with imperfections of weave positioned so as to accentuate the shadows and impart realism. The possibility of conincidence is even more unlikely. . . . The black of the eyes and hair cannot be iron oxide or any pigment that turns brown with age for the paint is neither cracked nor faded with age. The truly phenomonal thing about the face and hands is the tonal quality which is as much a physical effect from the light refelcting off the coarse tilma as the paint itself.

~ Philip S. Callahan, "The Tilma Under Infa-Red Radiation," [i]CARA Studies on Popular Devotion, Volume II: Guadalupan Studies,[/i] No 3 (Washington, 1981) pp. 9-15.


You have to see the image, to really appreciate what he's talking about. The colors are absolutely incredible - it does not look anything like a 500 year old painting on rough cloth which should have deteriorated over 400 years ago!

[EcceNovaFacioOmni]

[quote name='Melchisedec' date='Feb 11 2005, 05:51 PM'] 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. [/quote]
That sounds a little ridiculous. It didn't take 500 years to figure out somebody [i]painted[/i] it.

[kjvail]

These dogmatic naturalist start with the assumption that everything has a natural explanation then desperately search for evidence to support their hypothesis. Which is exactly backwards from how their much vaunted "scientific method" is supposed to work.

[jasJis]

Mel,
Personally, I don't really have feelings one way or another about the various 'miracles' of Guadelupe, Lordes, etc. When I think about them (which isn't often) they just seem remote and non-applicable to me personally. They have no bearing one way or another on my personal relationship with God. They could be completely disproved today, and it would matter nothing to me. My faith and beliefs are not based on these 'miracles'.

If they do nothing for you, how can they serve to disprove the existence of God? If they are false, how does that prove that God doesn't exist? Miracles such as these are not intended to be the Foundation and Proof for anyone's faith. They are merely starting points for some people. If it's not a starting point for you or me, then keep going...

[Totus Tuus]

This may have already been mentioned:
The cloth that her image was painted on always deteriorated within a very short amount of time because it was not very durable (I think it was something like 20 years that it usually lasted). It is in the same condition now as it was then.

There are other points I could look up because I studied it in history a couple of years ago. I remember reading undeniable evidence.
But of course, as with all miracles, we have to have faith! God bless

[EcceNovaFacioOmni]

[quote name='jasJis' date='Feb 12 2005, 10:14 AM'] If they do nothing for you, how can they serve to disprove the existence of God? If they are false, how does that prove that God doesn't exist? Miracles such as these are not intended to be the Foundation and Proof for anyone's faith. They are merely starting points for some people. If it's not a starting point for you or me, then keep going... [/quote]
Somebody actually tried to convince me that Christianity was false by trying to prove that Constantine didn't actually see a cross in the sky...

[Guest Aluigi]

if constantine really saw pink elephants in the sky and that's the sign he conquered by it wouldn't make a difference to me.

[theculturewarrior]

A legend is written by the majority of the people in the village who are sane. A book is written by the one man in the village who is mad. -- G.K. Chesterton.

[Benedict]

I see these researchers in a lab, placing the tilma beneath infra-red lamps or carefully removing a section to dissolve and inject into a gas chromatograph.

Then I see Our Lord and Lady in heaven, just smiling down on them. As a scientist, I feel that God has hidden much in our world for us to find, examine, and understand. Then He threw in some extra bits.