NASA Examines Our Lady of Guadalupe

Discussion in 'The Cesspool' started by bearer_of_truth, Sep 16, 2016.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. bearer_of_truth Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    116
    • Please don't post credulous nonsense as if it were fact.
    Our Lady of Guadalupe

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    It is said that this image miraculously appeared on fabric December 12, 1531.

    NASA has discovered of Our Lady of Guadalupe to be living.

    "The space agency NASA (USA) published the results of research made over the icon Our Lady of Guadalupe."

    "Sensational was the fact that analysis of opthalmologic eye reduction Mary showed pupil at the approach of light and the expansion at it's disposal as it happens with the eyes of the living person."

    "Also, researchers found that tissue temperature, which depicted an image, meets healthy human body temperature - 36.6 degrees."
    "When listening to the body Mary stethoscope, the researchers found a significant heart rate of 115 beats per minute, which corresponds to the baby's heartbeat which is in the womb."

    source:

    http://tsn.ua/nauka_it/nasa-znayshlo-zhivu-ikonu-materi-bozhoyi-z-temperaturoyu-tila-lyudini.html
     
  2. Guest Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. spidergoat Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    51,740
    Nonsense. Who is the NASA scientist? Where were the results published?
     
  4. Guest Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Dywyddyr Penguinaciously duckalicious. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,525
    This claim is sheer drivel.
    It dates back at least nine years yet not one single website gives any link to such a study.
    Why would NASA (a space agency) conduct that study?
    Wiki states that "Neither the fabric ("the support") nor the image (together, "the tilma") has been analyzed using the full range of resources now available to museum conservationists".
    The last (of 4) partial studies was performed in 2002. The only mention of NASA is for a study (again partial) done in 1979 by a NASA consultant (infrared imaging specialist) - and he made no such claims as given in the OP (he published his findings in 1981).
    It should also be noted that NASA's own website has no mention whatsoever of a study and that a search for "Guadalupe" provides mention of only the island - not even a sniff of "Our Lady of".
    As for "miraculously appeared" that's sort of shot down by the2002 study which showed "that the image is merely a native artist’s painting".
    In short the entire thing appears to a complete fabrication fostered for, and by, the credulous and gullible.
     
  6. Guest Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. bearer_of_truth Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    116
    Just because you do not know the names of the scientists and where the results were published does not make it nonsense.
     
  8. bearer_of_truth Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    116
    The NASA findings are quoted by TCH OPAMAC, a News Website from the Ukraine.

    Anyone including myself can write in and change Wiki. It is not a reliable source.
     
  9. spidergoat Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    51,740
    Where's the actual report?
     
  10. Kristoffer Giant Hyrax Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,233
    Got one word. Bullshit.
     
  11. bearer_of_truth Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    116
    You could get that information from the News Website quoting the findings.
     
  12. Dywyddyr Penguinaciously duckalicious. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,525
    This is incorrect.
    That site published what is CLAIMED to be NASA findings - there is no link to (or even for) any NASA report whatsoever.

    And if you post drivel on Wiki it will get corrected.

    In point of fact Wiki has been shown to be at least as reliable (on scientific subjects[1]) as Encyclopaedia Britannica.

    But I am intrigued: what, specifically, leads you to think that the website you quoted and linked is in any way reliable?
    I suspect that the sole reason is that it "confirms" a belief you hold.

    1 Apparently they fall down on pop culture.
     
    Kristoffer likes this.
  13. Dywyddyr Penguinaciously duckalicious. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,525
    Can you?
    In which case you'll have no problem whatsoever giving us a relevant link.
     
  14. bearer_of_truth Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    116
    The things of God are known to be of a living character for He is the living God who is the giver of Life. Far from immature BS.
     
  15. bearer_of_truth Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    116
    The News Site is a credible link releasing the NASA findings word for word.
     
  16. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,723
    No, they made it up. NASA never said that. To paraphrase John Cleese:

    It's not credible! It's completely made up. This finding has never been! This report is completely fact-free! The author is mendacious, two-timing, duplicitous, perfidious and untruthful! His post contains not a whit, tittle, piece, scrap, shred, crumb, grain, particle, morsel, soupcon or smidgen of actual reality-based content! Bereft of facts, it stands empty! This is a NON-FINDING!
     
    origin and Kristoffer like this.
  17. Dywyddyr Penguinaciously duckalicious. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,525
    1) Why do you think that the site is credible?
    2) There is no link to the purported NASA study.
    3) Why do you think that they've reported "the NASA findings word for word"? Have you seen that report? (Or have you simply made it up that "word for word" is the case?)
    4) Why would NASA do such an investigation?
    5) If NASA had done such a study why is not mentioned at all on their website? Or any other site except for cranks sites and those with a religious agenda to push? (And why do those sites also not give a link to the claimed study?).

    In short, again, your claim about "word for word" is not only unsubstantiated it appears to be entirely false.
    Which prompts the question: why are you lying?
     
    Kristoffer likes this.
  18. Dywyddyr Penguinaciously duckalicious. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,525
    No, they aren't.

    There's at least two unsupported claims in there.

    Which would mean that this:
    is also unsupported.
     
  19. Kristoffer Giant Hyrax Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,233
  20. spidergoat Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    51,740
    Unless you provide a link to the actual report, not just conclusions, I can't know if the conclusions are based on fact. This is a classic example of the argument from authority fallacy. No one should believe something just because someone who worked for NASA said it. No one believes any scientist just because they said it. Conclusions must be backed by data.



    Translation of your website below. It mentions the report, and that it was published, but they don't list the author, title or publication where it was published.



    The space agency NASA (USA) published the results of research made over the icon of Our Lady of Guadalupe.
    Sensational was the fact that the analysis of ophthalmologic eye reduction Mary showed pupil at the approach of light and expansion at its disposal as it happens with the eyes of a living person.

    Also, researchers found that tissue temperature, which depicted an image, meets healthy human body temperature - 36.6 degrees.

    Read: NASA found in space "Christmas Angel" (photo)

    When listening to the body of Mary stethoscope, the researchers found a significant heart rate of 115 beats per minute, which corresponds to the baby's heartbeat, which is in the womb.

    According to research experts from NASA, paint, which was painted icon ever found on Earth.

    A case where the early twentieth century, along with the icon of Mary planted a bomb, destructive power which has a large radius. However, when the explosion occurred, everything was destroyed, but the icon has remained whole and intact.

    It is interesting and what scholars note that the hand of the Virgin Mary have small differences: lighter right and the left darker, which can mean unity between races.

    At the time NASA researchers continue to study the icon of Our Lady of Guadalupe.
     
  21. spidergoat Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    51,740
    The only possible NASA involvement comes from a Philip Callahan, on the wikipedia page:
    Callahan, Philip: "The Tilma Under Infra-Red Radiation", CARA Studies in Popular Devotion, Vol. II, Guadalupan Studies, No. III (March 1981, 45pp.), Washington, D.C.


    Here is a link to a Phil Callahan of the Jet Propulsion Laboratory:
    http://radar.jpl.nasa.gov/people/index.cfm?FuseAction=ShowPerson&pplID=81

    I wonder if they are the same person.
    There's even a phone number.
     
  22. spidergoat Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    51,740
    By the way, the Shroud of Turin is also fake.
     
  23. bearer_of_truth Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    116
    The finding were quoted.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page