Independently repeatable evidence that God interacts with our world

[Mountainmike]

Enough.

There are not “ multiple opinions” if you go back to the source for each, there is one set of forensic reports ( albeit from multiple labs on each instance) , and they correspond to the other so called Eucharistic miracles in all key regards.
These are national crime labs in some cases. Not easily dismissed.

The samples themselves are inexplicable by science whatever the origin of their formation. That alone should make someone sit up and take notice.

But here is the crux.
You won’t look at the detail reports and the précis are not enough by themselves. So stuck in a trap of your own making it seems to me.

You have listed a set of prejudices.” Bad science, pseudoscience; poor evidence, no evidence; poorly controlled or analysed experiments; exaggerated, embellished, or invented stories; vested interests in the claims; wishful thinking; credulous believers; honest people fooling themselves & others; dishonest people fooling others; attention seekers, money seekers, influence seekers, fraudsters, and so-on.” A rather long list of “ whataboutery”

But whatever the truth of that has absolutely no bearing on these.

These stand and fall on their own evidence.

let’s move on….

Given the information I have seen, I remain sceptical.

Does my spending so much time on the topic really give you the impression I have little interest in it?

In earlier times, I spent a considerable amount of time looking into paranormal and supernatural reports & claims. The more I learned the more sceptical I became. Bad science, pseudoscience; poor evidence, no evidence; poorly controlled or analysed experiments; exaggerated, embellished, or invented stories; vested interests in the claims; wishful thinking; credulous believers; honest people fooling themselves & others; dishonest people fooling others; attention seekers, money seekers, influence seekers, fraudsters, and so-on.

The eucharist & shroud stories have some characteristic believer themes, such as the 'missing the forest for the trees' theme of focusing on unexplained details and generally ignoring larger problematic contextual issues (also found with conspiracy theorists).

I'm interested to see if someone comes up with something new, but it's mostly rehashes or refinements of earlier scams.

Apparently, people simply want to believe in weird and fantastical claims ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

There are not “ multiple opinions” if you go back to the source for each, there is one set of forensic reports ( albeit from multiple labs on each instance) , and they correspond to the other so called Eucharistic miracles in all key regards.
These are national crime labs in some cases. Not easily dismissed.

There were multiple stories about how the 'miracle' occurred or was discovered, and different reports about what happened next. This is par for the course in such stories. I've already explained why the forensic reports may be irrelevant.

The samples themselves are inexplicable by science whatever the origin of their formation. That alone should make someone sit up and take notice.

Unexplained does not mean inexplicable.

But here is the crux.
You won’t look at the detail reports and the précis are not enough by themselves. So stuck in a trap of your own making it seems to me.

It's your claim here, the onus is on you to support it. I'll look at whatever evidence you can provide - so far, very little.

I'm wondering why, if they want this material to convince the sceptics, the whole shebang is not in the public domain so it can be thoroughly investigated and verified... why, do you think?

You have listed a set of prejudices.” Bad science, pseudoscience; poor evidence, no evidence; poorly controlled or analysed experiments; exaggerated, embellished, or invented stories; vested interests in the claims; wishful thinking; credulous believers; honest people fooling themselves & others; dishonest people fooling others; attention seekers, money seekers, influence seekers, fraudsters, and so-on.”

They're just common outcomes of careful investigations into paranormal and supernatural claims (not by me).

 

[Strathos]

The miracles in the Bible are poorly documented and must be taken on faith. They are what they are. I don't find them credible, but that's not what the claims are here. Instead what we have are Mike's "modern miracles", you know, the kind with lots of "verified reports" and such. These are the ones that are not particularly accepted. For each appearance of Mary, or healing by a dead pope or other holy person, or other miracle I think we can honestly say that: 1) most people don't accept that specific miracle, 2) most Christians don't accept that particular miracle, and I suspect even 3) most Catholics don't accept that particular miracle (especially if it hasn't been approved by the Vatican). I used to be a Catholic who thought these "(Catholic) modern miracles" were just as bunk as the faith healings of Peter Popov or the statues of Ganesh that drank milk. [I don't know if I was conscious of this or not, but my thinking was something of the order "if it's a real miracle, why isn't it in the Bible?" I wasn't particularly well informed about the compilation of that book back then.]

I can't exactly claim to have personally witnessed an actual miracle (as in a temporary suspension of the laws of nature) but I don't doubt that they happen. But there are easily 1000 fake miracles for every real one. It's hard to know the difference unless you witness it in person.

 

[partinobodycular]

Those who won’t read the evidence will never know.

Oddly enough, at least in my case, it's not won't...it's can't. Usually Google is a pretty reliable source, but outside of one pdf written in Spanish I couldn't find any documentation for your claims, beyond innumerable repetitions of the exact same secondhand stories. Unfortunately I don't speak Spanish very well, and the pdf was too big for Google to translate.

So I can't help but be skeptical about your admonishing us for not looking at the evidence...when there doesn't seem to be any available.

Needless to say, that unless you can provide us with a credible source for your supposed evidence, your credibility which was already extremely low, will be almost nonexistent.

 

[Mountainmike]

Discounted before you even look:
all the usual smokescreen.

The thing itself is inexplicable. how it came to be under the microscope isn’t necessary to demonstrate that what is there breaks scientific laws and is consistent with the explanation of how it came to be there. The forensic pathologist says inexplicable I take his judgement.

No point in continuing the discussion until you look at what is there, maybe we could discuss it/ limitations of it. I think the castarnon book is on scribd.

we are both better off doing other things until and if you are willing to invest time and money in it.

There were multiple stories about how the 'miracle' occurred or was discovered, and different reports about what happened next. This is par for the course in such stories. I've already explained why the forensic reports may be irrelevant.

Unexplained does not mean inexplicable.

It's your claim here, the onus is on you to support it. I'll look at whatever evidence you can provide - so far, very little.

I'm wondering why, if they want this material to convince the sceptics, the whole shebang is not in the public domain so it can be thoroughly investigated and verified... why, do you think?

They're just common outcomes of careful investigations into paranormal and supernatural claims (not by me).

 

[Mountainmike]

It happened in Spanish speaking territories.
Google translate can help.
Some of the forensic reports are English

Some videos are English, makes following the forensics easier.
The polish phenomenon report was in polish.
There are English books on lanciano , Buenos airies. But some of Buenos airies is also in Spanish.

It’s up to you.

Oddly enough, at least in my case, it's not won't...it's can't. Usually Google is a pretty reliable source, but outside of one pdf written in Spanish I couldn't find any documentation for your claims, beyond innumerable repetitions of the exact same secondhand stories. Unfortunately I don't speak Spanish very well, and the pdf was too big for Google to translate.

So I can't help but be skeptical about your admonishing us for not looking at the evidence...when there doesn't seem to be any available.

Needless to say, that unless you can provide us with a credible source for your supposed evidence, your credibility which was already extremely low, will be almost nonexistent.

 

[Mountainmike]

So I really don’t think it is worth pursuing this further. I’ve no interest in arguing , & others seem to have little interest in digging, and this takes some digging.

But it is worth discussing between us how to approach such things.

phenomena like this produce a mass of evidence , some physical, some anecdotal, some witness statements and so on.

What really matters in my view is digging down to identify what is critical to declare it inexplicable, Rather than just unexplained.
To do that you don’t need all the evidence, indeed even most of the evidence- just one or two aspects are sufficient.

Take Fatima - many focus on the miracle of the sun, and whether the phenomenon itself is explicable. For sure it was extraordinary , and hasn’t repeated before or since anywhere. I personally doubt it ever will repeat. But That’s the wrong focus to my mind.

Only two things are needed to make it inexplicable.

First that it was extraordinary & physical not just a hallucination.

That’s demonstrable not just because of the number and volume of trained witnesses , but also because it was viewed from long distance by some not expecting it.( so not hallucination).

But also because hundreds of witnesses describe the torrential rain all morning, then in a matter of minutes their clothes and the ground was dry. I live in that part of Portugal. Mud stays for weeks at that time of year. That’s enough to be extraordinary & physical.

Provided it passes that test, what actually makes it inexplicable,( not just unexplained) is not the phenomenon itself but that it was prophesied to an exact time and place. Prophecy breaks scientific law.

It wasn’t the only prophesy. But one is enough. The extraordinary happened on a prophesied date, place , time.

So the question is what aspects are enough to prove inexplicable in each case?

In the case of Alexandrina da Costa , inedia for a month without losing weight is inexplicable. Bodies don’t do that.

So a hospital report of surveillance for a month by sceptic doctors to confirm she did not drink, urinate , defaecate or eat ( other than milligrams of wafer) . They even tightened the regime. She was paralysed so didn’t pass guards on the door. Nothing was allowed in.

lots of other aspects of Alexandrina , but that is enough.

So Three such factors on Eucharistic miracles are leucocytes that do not dissolve. Lack of DNA in human heart tissue. Just preservation for 1000 years whilst still chemically viable as blood and flesh defies explanation.

The circumstances of flesh blood samples appeared on Eucharistic wafer are fascinating, and at the crux of theistic overtones ,
But they are not needed to declare the samples inexplicable. Put simply leucocytes can’t survive in vitro. Only on live samples. Ask any pathologist.

Not all evidence is needed to find the inexplicable part.

 

[Zoii]

Enough.

There are not “ multiple opinions” if you go back to the source for each, there is one set of forensic reports ( albeit from multiple labs on each instance) , and they correspond to the other so called Eucharistic miracles in all key regards.
These are national crime labs in some cases. Not easily dismissed.

The samples themselves are inexplicable by science whatever the origin of their formation. That alone should make someone sit up and take notice.

But here is the crux.
You won’t look at the detail reports and the précis are not enough by themselves. So stuck in a trap of your own making it seems to me.

You have listed a set of prejudices.” Bad science, pseudoscience; poor evidence, no evidence; poorly controlled or analysed experiments; exaggerated, embellished, or invented stories; vested interests in the claims; wishful thinking; credulous believers; honest people fooling themselves & others; dishonest people fooling others; attention seekers, money seekers, influence seekers, fraudsters, and so-on.” A rather long list of “ whataboutery”

But whatever the truth of that has absolutely no bearing on these.

These stand and fall on their own evidence.

let’s move on….

Mountainmike no one's criticising you for having faith. No one is trying to offend you. We just don't agree with what you purport to be credible scientific evidence of a God.

 

[Mountainmike]

Mountainmike no one's criticising you for having faith. No one is trying to offend you. We just don't agree with what you purport to be credible scientific evidence of a God.

It’s nothing to do with faith, it is science and assessment of evidence.

You use one of the oldest logical falasies in critical thinking.
2+2=4 whoever says it, sceptic or believer. Who I am has no bearing on whether a statement I make is correct or false. The statement stands on its own merits.

You haven’t even looked at The forensic reports so You have no valid statement to make on them. You dismiss them a-priori The fact you assume evidence is insufficient, or “ don’t agree” speaks volumes for sceptic prejudice and lack of impartial scientific process.

me? I trust top flight forensic scientists unless I am given cause to doubt them.
Multiple phenomena, multiple country, multiple labs, many forensic pathologists, multiple continents come to the same conclusion. So not even an isolated incident or conclusion,.

So what PRECISELY do you contend Dr Lazo got wrong in analysis of tixtla and how does your resume stack up against his to make such an authoritative statement?
Which statement of HIS do you disagree with. It’s not me you disagree with it is him. He is someone that studied the samples , with the expertise to do so, have you?

As an expert forensic witness he has helped put thousands of criminals behind bars.

The arrogance by which some of these scientists conclusions are dismissed by sceptics is breathtaking!

It’s of no consequence to me whether any particular phenomenon stands scrutiny, but in these cases the thresholds are passed for the inexplicable.

 

[Ophiolite]

I can't exactly claim to have personally witnessed an actual miracle (as in a temporary suspension of the laws of nature) but I don't doubt that they happen. But there are easily 1000 fake miracles for every real one. It's hard to know the difference unless you witness it in person.

If miracles exist I would find it entirely plausible that each genuine miracle would be outnumbered by the 1000 fakes. However, I find your criterion for recognising a real one to be suspect.

I certainly would not trust my eye-witness observation of a possible miracle. I would consider reliance upon personal observation to be a form of unwarranted optimism. The reason science demands repetition of experiments and generally favours instrumental data over human observation is that human observation is inept, limited and biased. Since I would not trust my own eye witness observations of something as important as a miracle, why would I trust those of a complete stranger? (That's a rhetorical, generic question.)

 

[partinobodycular]

You haven’t even looked at The forensic reports so You have no valid statement to make on them. You dismiss them a-priori The fact you assume evidence is insufficient, or “ don’t agree” speaks volumes for sceptic prejudice and lack of impartial scientific process.

me? I trust top flight forensic scientists unless I am given cause to doubt them.
Multiple phenomena, multiple country, multiple labs, many forensic pathologists, multiple continents come to the same conclusion. So not even an isolated incident or conclusion,.

So what PRECISELY do you contend Dr Lazo got wrong in analysis of tixtla and how does your resume stack up against his to make such an authoritative statement?
Which statement of HIS do you disagree with. It’s not me you disagree with it is him. He is someone that studied the samples , with the expertise to do so, have you?

Please provide a link to said forensic reports.

If you can't provide a link to said reports then please provide a link to a qualified critique of said reports.

If you can do neither, then please stop admonishing people for not reading them.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Discounted before you even look:
all the usual smokescreen.

I've seen nothing substantial to discount, beyond unsupported assertions and bluster. Therefore, I remain sceptical.

I have no more reason to invest time and money in this topic than thousands of other paranormal and supernatural claims. I have already invested a good deal of time and money on these subjects, which resulted in my current scepticism.

If you want to change my mind on this you need to present the evidence you find so compelling; 'go buy the book' is not presenting evidence.

I've also suggested ways in which what I've heard so far may be problematic and you just ignored them ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

 

[partinobodycular]

So what PRECISELY do you contend Dr Lazo got wrong in analysis of tixtla and how does your resume stack up against his to make such an authoritative statement?
Which statement of HIS do you disagree with. It’s not me you disagree with it is him. He is someone that studied the samples , with the expertise to do so, have you?

I'm specifically concerned with your claims regarding Tixtla because it's an event with which I'm not familiar.

Your case for it is weakened from the outset however, by your support for the events surrounding Fatima, a case with which I am indeed familiar, and a case for which I find no credible evidence for anything other than perfectly natural explanations.

This is to me just another example of an overly zealous individual getting caught up in an emotional attachment to their preconceptions. You are correct on one thing however, there's no point in rehashing arguments that have already been thoroughly debunked.

Yes, I know that you believe they're true, and I know that you'll dismiss all arguments to the contrary. But what bothers me most is when you accuse people of disregarding the scientific evidence, of which you haven't actually given us any, just second hand inferences of said evidence.

You're expecting us to apply scientific objectivity to evidence that you simply cannot provide.

 

[Strathos]

If miracles exist I would find it entirely plausible that each genuine miracle would be outnumbered by the 1000 fakes. However, I find your criterion for recognising a real one to be suspect.

I certainly would not trust my eye-witness observation of a possible miracle. I would consider reliance upon personal observation to be a form of unwarranted optimism. The reason science demands repetition of experiments and generally favours instrumental data over human observation is that human observation is inept, limited and biased. Since I would not trust my own eye witness observations of something as important as a miracle, why would I trust those of a complete stranger? (That's a rhetorical, generic question.)

I never said I would trust a stranger. But someone I know personally and know to be honest would be reliable.

 

[Mountainmike]

**sigh**

What PRECISELY do you disagree with in Dr Lazos conclusions who examined tixtla. A forensic pathologist and criminal expert witness - who has the advantage of having analysed the samples? By what qualification , experience or knowledge is your authority better than this?
His opinion is it is inexplicable. ( as I see did the other pathologists regarding the other similar phenomena)

If you don’t have an answer to that you don’t have an opinion.

It seems you know nothing about Fatima either, if you think a
“ natural “ explanation suffices. Natural wasn’t the opinion of the professional witnesses and science professors , and the contingent of anti religious sceptic journalists present. ( or indeed the hundreds of eyewitnesses testimonies I have in original Portuguese)
But as I pointed out, that’s not the point : the phenomenon was extraordinary, But the prophecy is inexplicable.
Tell me which day and place it will happen again, I’ll look out for it…


farewell all.
I’m off to find somewhere people want to discuss scientific evidence
Instead of their sceptic a priori prejudice.

I'm specifically concerned with your claims regarding Tixtla because it's an event with which I'm not familiar.

Your case for it is weakened from the outset however, by your support for the events surrounding Fatima, a case with which I am indeed familiar, and a case for which I find no credible evidence for anything other than perfectly natural explanations.

This is to me just another example of an overly zealous individual getting caught up in an emotional attachment to their preconceptions. You are correct on one thing however, there's no point in rehashing arguments that have already been thoroughly debunked.

Yes, I know that you believe they're true, and I know that you'll dismiss all arguments to the contrary. But what bothers me most is when you accuse people of disregarding the scientific evidence, of which you haven't actually given us any, just second hand inferences of said evidence.

You're expecting us to apply scientific objectivity to evidence that you simply cannot provide.

 

[Mountainmike]

I’ve linked précis ( the real presence)
The video interview translated with the pathologist describing the critical points, confirming the précis,
The book ( castarnon ) containing the forensic reports confirming the detail.
I found them, you can too.

Please provide a link to said forensic reports.

If you can't provide a link to said reports then please provide a link to a qualified critique of said reports.

If you can do neither, then please stop admonishing people for not reading them.

 

[partinobodycular]

I’ve linked précis ( the real presence)
The video interview translated with the pathologist describing the critical points, confirming the précis,
The book ( castarnon ) containing the forensic reports confirming the detail.
I found them, you can too.

Links please. Sorry, your linked website doesn't qualify. It's a rather meager synopsis of your claimed forensic study.

 

[Mountainmike]

Look up . You will find them.

Links please.

But as I keep repeating , critical details are inexplicable.
You don’t need the full report.

At Buenos Aires, tixtla, sokolka etc.
Leucocytes were found in all the samples weeks & months after sampling from samples which were not living human beings.
Leucocytes do not survive in cadavers or in vitro.

As in the précis, on http://www.therealpresence.org/eucharst/mir/english_pdf/Tixtla2.pdf
as confirmed in detailed forensic reports.

Indeed falling concentration can be used to estimate time of death in a couple of days.. check pubmed , So They are signs of life.

That one detail alone was sufficient for pathologists to declare these phenomena inexplicable. If you think it is fraud - How did a fraudster manage to fool top flight forensic pathologists?

Thats why frumios insistence on documented history is largely irrelevant when what is there on the slide cannot be explained.

but really.

I’m interested in discussing science, not sceptic apriori prejudice, so prevalent here, or their opinions on believers.
So unless someone gives a sensible SCIENTIFIC answer to that consistent with what is known of the samples, I’m not bothering to respond.

till then.. the score for EVIDENCE of life from inert substances

Abiogenesis 0 ( never been observed, either whether or how)

Eucharistic miracles 6 ( hundreds actually, only a few recent tested)

Abiogenesis is pure conjecture , these samples are real.

 

[partinobodycular]

As in the précis, on http://www.therealpresence.org/eucharst/mir/english_pdf/Tixtla2.pdf
as confirmed in detailed forensic reports.

As I said, that's nothing but a synopsis. Perhaps you could give me the actual title of the book to which you're referring. That would be helpful.

Leucocytes were found in all the samples weeks & months after sampling from samples which were not living human beings.
Leucocytes do not survive in cadavers or in vitro.

I need some context for this claim, so that I can determine its relevance, and whether there are other possible explanations. So don't just tell me, give a link to the original study.

 

[partinobodycular]

I’m interested in discussing science, not sceptic apriori prejudice, prevalent here, or their opinions on believers So unless someone gives a sensible SCIENTIFIC answer to that consistent with what is known of the samples, I’m not bothering to respond.

All that you've done is given me a link to the purported claims, with no corroborating documentation, and then expected me to accept them as is. You've asked us to examine the evidence...well that's what I'm trying to do, but you don't seem to be providing any.