Liquidfied Blood of Saint has been Debunked

For centuries in the city of Naples, Italy, many have believed that the blood of Saint Gennaro protected them from such dangers as earthquakes or an eruption of Mount Vesuvius.. The blood is solid most of the time but when the vials are shaken, the blood liquidfies thus proving Saint Gennaro still loves and protects the city.

The substance that these vials contains has been examined by Cicap, Committee for the Investigation of the Paranormal and they have determined that the substance is actually a thixotropic substance that is based off of iron chloride, which will liquidfy when stirred (shaken) and then will return to it's normal solid form when at rest.

The group has also determined that the various reports of statues that weep blood, due indeed have blood. Unfortunately, the bleeding statues have never been witnessed bleeding. Only the blood stains have been found. Cicap has determined that these blood stains were actually created by the owners of the various statues who have pricked their fingers then smeared the blood on the statues.

This finding is causing quite a turmoil for the steadfast beleivers in Italy which is a very spiritual country.
No blood, sweat or tears

Nice find, kenshiro.

It seems strange that Cicap would have been granted access to the "blood" of Saint Gennaro, especially given the Chruch's hesitancy in allowing independant analysis of the blood in the past. There appear to be contradicting reports on the issue of testing also, with the seemingly contradicting statement that

successive cardinals of Naples have been willing to allow independent scientists to examine the liquid but the glass phials are incredibly delicate and what would happen if they broke and the precious liquid was exposed to the air?

Now that the blood has been debunked, it is interesting to note the Church's reaction. They seemed quick to point out that the vial has never been held to be a miracle, simply "a sign". The Church does indeed appear to be sidestepping the ramifications of these findings, though, by making statements such as

There are many other important things for scientists to investigate.

I suppose the question that this debunking also raises is whether or not debunking "miracles" such as this are always justified. I support the search for the truth, no matter where that search leads us, but when should we stop to measure the cost? Is it better, in cases such as this, to let people retain their belief in the miraculous, even if we know it is demonstrably wrong? What do you think?

Weel that depends on what side of the fence you belong to.
If you are of a person of faith then yes it is bad that scientist do what they can to debunk miracles and the like.
If you are a secularist, then as per a news bite on foxnews yesterday, religion has hurt the indutrial nations. Sorry, I tried to find a link to the story but came up dry
The speaker indicated that the most industrialized nations such as England, USA, Spain have highly elevated numbers of infant deaths, murders as well as drug usage. The speaker was trying to link these facts to the fact that these nations are still very religious and that this religious trait is the root cause of the ills mentioned. A lot of huey I think!

I for one would like the scientist to continue their work. Yes, they will eventually debunk most of the deeply held beleifs, but what will happen once they come across one that they cannot debunk or explain? Hmmmm.....

Originally posted by kenshiro2012
Cicap has determined that these blood stains were actually
created by the owners of the various statues who have pricked
their fingers then smeared the blood on the statues.

It doesn't say how he 'determined' this. Is it just a guess or did
he actually catch someone doing it? Was he able to match blood
types from the statue to the owner? None of that is said.

I'm guessing that he is just guessing at this .... which isn't a debunk.

I'd like a link to some proof to back this statement up.

Originally posted by FlyersFan
I'd like a link to some proof to back this statement up.

I'm no genius on scientific method, but...

wouldn't it first be required to prove that

1. statues do indeed cry
   
2. statues have blood inside them (circulating)
   
3. statues cry tears of blood as opposed (or in addition to) the standard salty recipe
   

[edit on 10/6/2005 by queenannie38]

Originally posted by Jeremiah25
Now that the blood has been debunked, it is interesting to note the Church's reaction. They seemed quick to point out that the vial has never been held to be a miracle, simply "a sign".

I'd say that the church was probably as interested as anyone in finding out if it was bunk, and that thats why they brought it in, probably expecting it to be found out to not be magically revivifying blood.

flyersfan
I'm guessing that he is just guessing at this

You might infact be right
www.cicap.org...

Nobody, seemed to have thought of the simplest of all methods: the owner of the statue, in the comfort of his own home, could have taken some of his own blood and smeared it on the face of the statue. The claim of the bishop, who said he also saw the statue weep, can't be validated since at that time, the statue had been left unattended in his house where he also had three guests (one of which was a mystical seer).
The right thing to do, according to CICAP, would have been to immediately lock up the statue in a transparent case, place in front of it a video camera and a couple of persons as guards, and see if the weeping would have taken place under control. It is interesting to note that, while the statue was impounded by the magistrate, it never weeped.
As a closing note, it is quite revealing to see that the Gregori family has recently refused to subject to the DNA tests.

Of course, its a darned good guess.

Originally posted by queenannie38
wouldn't it first be required to prove that .....

People have been making claims that statues cry salty tears and
bloody tears for centuries. I have seen a statue cry. It was a statue
of Mary. The statue cried clear tears. This was May of 1991 in
Medjugorje Yugoslavia.

It is up to you if you wish to believe it. It is also up to you if you wish
to believe the other claims. Some I do. Some I don't. However,
the person writing the article claims to have debunked everything
so it's up to HIM (or her) to give proof that the person making the
claim is wrong. Not the other way around. He didn't provide proof
of his claim to have debunked. It looks like he's just guessing.
It could be, as NYGDAN said, a good guess. But it's still just a guess
and not a debunk.

BTW - I have never heard the claim that statues have blood circulating
inside them. I took a quick look through my library, which has a bunch
of info on alleged apparitions and the such, and I saw nothing of anyone
claiming blood circulating. Do you know of any such claim? I'd love to
know. Sincerely.



[edit on 10/6/2005 by FlyersFan]

I too would like to know just how this committee went about 'determining' said information.

I haven't heard of this particular relic before, and I have no conviction one way or the other as for its legitimacy, but if these guys didn't perform a chemical analysis of the substance itself then their conclusion isn't necessarily valid.

Originally posted by The Parallelogram
but if these guys didn't perform a chemical analysis of the
substance itself then their conclusion isn't necessarily valid.

Yep. I went back and looked at the article. They didn't do any
chemical analysis. They just took a look at it and made another
guess.

They guessed that the 'blood' was a thixotropic substance and they
guessed that the statues had blood on them from humans cutting
their fingers.

Not exactly scientific debunking procedures. I can take a look at
anything and make a guess.

Originally posted by FlyersFan
Not exactly scientific debunking procedures. I can take a look at
anything and make a guess.

That's why 'seeing is not believing.'

Just because you saw tears coming out of a statue does not constitute a firm fact regarding statues in general.

Which eye do you use to look with?