Lady of Guadalupe miracle debunked

[MichaelFilo]

I agree, 500 years and now someone finds out it's painted. Shiver me timbers, I smell not likely.

Miracles aren't a part of our Faith's foundation, but I wholeheartedly subscribe to all miracles advocated by the Catholic Church. I would contend even these can't be dissproven, especially on how rigrous a scale the Catholic Church uses to accept the truth in things.

God bless,
Mikey

[AngelofJesus]

[quote]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.[/quote]

This humanity you belong to that has been dumbed down, isn't so dumb. Countless scientists and authors (geniuses) are devout catholics, Namely, Louis Pasteur, JRR Tolkien, etc.

A bigger earthly mystery to solve and none to my knowledge has solved it, is "what the carp happens to one of my socks in the dryer. I put them in paired, and one is always missing when I take them out." or the biggest mystery of all "Blue screen of death with windows 2000 or NT".

[StColette]

[quote name='MichaelFilo' date='Feb 13 2005, 03:00 AM'] I would contend even these can't be dissproven, especially on how rigrous a scale the Catholic Church uses to accept the truth in things.
[/quote]
Amen! I agree with this completely. The Church does not accept things as miracles straight away, things are tested, tested, and tested again and then tested some more lol They put these things through rigorous tests before they make a comment on anything.

The Image of Our Lady of Guadalupe and Science

1. The image to this date, cannot be explained by science.

2. The image shows no sign of deterioration after 450 years!
The tilma or cloak of Saint Juan Diego on which the image of Our Lady has
been imprinted, is a coarse fabric made from the threads of the maguey
cactus. This fiber disintegrates within 20-60 years!

3. There is no under sketch, no sizing and no protective over-varnish on the
image.

4. Microscopic examination revealed that there were no brush strokes.

5. The image seems to increase in size and change colors due to an unknown
property of the surface and substance of which it is made.

6. According to Kodak of Mexico, the image is smooth and feels like a
modern day photograph. (Produced 300 years before the invention of
photography.)

7. The image has consistently defied exact reproduction, whether by brush or
camera.

8. Several images can be seen reflected in the eyes of the Virgin. It is
believed to be the images of Juan Diego, Bishop Juan de Zummaraga, Juan
Gonzales, the interpreter and others.

9. The distortion and place of the images are identical to what is produced in
the normal eye which is impossible to obtain on a flat surface.

10. The stars on Our Lady's Mantle coincide with the constellations in the sky on
December 12, 1531. All who have scientifically examined the image of Our
Lady over the centuries confess that its properties are absolutely unique
and so inexplicable in human terms that the image can only be supernatural!

www.ourladyofguadalupe.org/ologimage.htm

[DojoGrant]

We've been studying a lot of Giotto in Italian Renaissance Art History. Unrelated to this, but in his Arena Chapel, he used an excessive amount of blue. The blue had to be imported from Iran, and was very rare and worth more, pound for pound, than gold.

There were two types of blues he had access to, one of them fades easily over time (as is evidenced by his existing work), and the other turns green when exposed to excess humidity or water.

A non-synthetic blue (which is all they had when this miracle occurred) would have visibly deteriorated in same way by now, for certain.

[StColette]

[quote name='DojoGrant' date='Feb 14 2005, 12:23 AM'] We've been studying a lot of Giotto in Italian Renaissance Art History.  Unrelated to this, but in his Arena Chapel, he used an excessive amount of blue.  The blue had to be imported from Iran, and was very rare and worth more, pound for pound, than gold.

There were two types of blues he had access to, one of them fades easily over time (as is evidenced by his existing work), and the other turns green when exposed to excess humidity or water.

A non-synthetic blue (which is all they had when this miracle occurred) would have visibly deteriorated in same way by now, for certain. [/quote]
hey we're talking about this in my Art History class too, I believe its called aquamarine.

Edited February 14, 2005 by StColette

[Melchisedec]

[quote name='fidei defensor' date='Feb 11 2005, 05:03 PM'] How interesting it is that they dont try to disprove the fact that it withstood a bomb blast, and floods [/quote]
We don't know the extent of the flood or blast. Was the image submerged in the flood? I have heard the bomb story, but I cannot help but to think this story is part of the lore\myth associated with the image.

[Melchisedec]

[quote name='Aluigi' date='Feb 11 2005, 05:25 PM'] 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. [/quote]
[img]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/0/06/Foo.jpg[/img]

This is what you speak of, sure doesn't look like a man stretching his arms out to me.

[Melchisedec]

[quote name='IcePrincessKRS' date='Feb 11 2005, 05:59 PM'] This is supposed to prove something? [/quote]
That its not a miracle

[Melchisedec]

[quote name='Archangel' date='Feb 11 2005, 08:12 PM'] How does science explain its existence after 500 years?

The natural fiber it is made out of should have deteriorated by now. [/quote]
[i] In 1999 archaeological microbiologist Leoncio Garza Valdes from the University of Texas at San Antonio studied the tilma and allegedly discovered that it was made of a much finer material then the supposed maguey fiber and had three superimposed paintings.[/i]


If this is true, than this can explain why it has not deteriorated.

[Melchisedec]

[quote name='MichaelFilo' date='Feb 13 2005, 03:00 AM'] I agree, 500 years and now someone finds out it's painted. Shiver me timbers, I smell not likely.

Miracles aren't a part of our Faith's foundation, but I wholeheartedly subscribe to all miracles advocated by the Catholic Church. I would contend even these can't be dissproven, especially on how rigrous a scale the Catholic Church uses to accept the truth in things.

God bless,
Mikey [/quote]
Nobody wanted to believe it was a painting. This image has been a very successful tool in converting the natives to christianity. It was thought to be a painting during its initial discovery , once it was marked as being a miracle statements would be blashpemous. Such as:

[i] In 1982, a private study commissioned by the then abbot of the Guadalupe basilica Monsignor Guillermo Schulenberg Prado, concluded that the tilma was a painting. Jose Sol Rosales, a Mexico City expert in art restoration, claimed that various layers of paint could easily be identified. Schulenberg was forced out of his position when his doubts about the Guadalupe story were published in 1995.[/i]

[Herbys]

On 2/11/2005 at 2:03 PM, Fidei Defensor said:

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

Why would he have to disprove those claims? It was a very rudimentary, low-power blast, which barely damaged the altar and a crucifix which were closer. You don't need a miracle to explain that the painting which was further away wasn't severely damaged. 

And the floods didn't reach the level of the painting, so why would it have been damaged?

Your faith is not made stronger by looking for miracles whenever there's any ordinary phenomenon, that just diminishes the real miracles. 

On 2/13/2005 at 12:05 PM, StColette said:

I would contend even these can't be dissproven, especially on how rigrous a scale the Catholic Church uses to accept the truth in things.

Amen! I agree with this completely. The Church does not accept things as miracles straight away, things are tested, tested, and tested again and then tested some more lol They put these things through rigorous tests before they make a comment on anything.

The Image of Our Lady of Guadalupe and Science

1. The image to this date, cannot be explained by science.

This is an empty claim. What part can't be explained? 

2. The image shows no sign of deterioration after 450 years!
The tilma or cloak of Saint Juan Diego on which the image of Our Lady has
been imprinted, is a coarse fabric made from the threads of the maguey
cactus. This fiber disintegrates within 20-60 years!

I've seen it in person. It is quite deteriorated. It is actually in much worse shape than most paintings by medieval artists (e.g. any Leonardo is in far better shape than this painting). It is still outstanding that it is in good shape, but does not require a miracle. And no, Maguey fiber doesn't disintegrate in 20-60 years. Not at all. 

3. There is no under sketch, no sizing and no protective over-varnish on the
image.
Like a lot of other paintings. 

4. Microscopic examination revealed that there were no brush strokes.
This is simply not true. Most examiners could identify coarse brush strokes. 

5. The image seems to increase in size and change colors due to an unknown
property of the surface and substance of which it is made.

Do you have a citation for that? I have never seen that claim.

6. According to Kodak of Mexico, the image is smooth and feels like a
modern day photograph. (Produced 300 years before the invention of
photography.)

That claim is false. There's no Kodak of Mexico, there was a representative of Kodak in Mexico (was a Mexican company) and they never made such assessment in public. This claim is just made up.

7. The image has consistently defied exact reproduction, whether by brush or
camera.

Absolutely and patently false. You've seen pictures, and I've seen pictures, and they are quite consistent with the real painting which I have also seen. 

8. Several images can be seen reflected in the eyes of the Virgin. It is
believed to be the images of Juan Diego, Bishop Juan de Zummaraga, Juan
Gonzales, the interpreter and others.

Here are the eyes: 

Feel free to zoom in and please tell me where you see those things. 

9. The distortion and place of the images are identical to what is produced in
the normal eye which is impossible to obtain on a flat surface.

That is a bizarre and false claim. Of course you can match the distortions produced in the normal eye. It's called projection, and not only was a well known technique by the time the painting was made but also knowing it was unnecessary if you had a human model and just copied what you saw. 

10. The stars on Our Lady's Mantle coincide with the constellations in the sky on
December 12, 1531. All who have scientifically examined the image of Our
Lady over the centuries confess that its properties are absolutely unique
and so inexplicable in human terms that the image can only be supernatural!
You are kidding, right? Constellations do not change over a few centuries. They look exactly the same today. And even if they were talking about something else that has changes since, it would not require a miracle, it would only require that the painter had the ability to look outside during that night!!!!

Seriously, do people here forget that LYING IS A SIN????

 

[Hna.Caridad]

 

[DjRosi]

Tonsmann pointed out that Richard Kuhn, a Nobel Prize winner in chemistry, has found that the "image did not have natural, animal or mineral colorings. Given that there were no synthetic colorings in 1531, the image is inexplicable!" This is from a world renowned  chemistry scientist and not the ramblings of a ignorant man!  also The scientist began his study in 1979. 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, there is no fiber smaller than a human hair to paint the figures inside the eyes now, much less then.