That’s it. I’m done.
And may I add: ewwwwww.
Oh, who am I kidding? I’ll be on the next one just like always.
-
About Bad Astronomy
If you went to BadAstronomy.com and found yourself here, never fear: the BA Blog has moved to its new home at Discover Blogs. The original BA site (with the Moon Hoax debunking and all that) is still online, too.
Phil Plait, the creator of Bad Astronomy, is an astronomer, lecturer, and author. After ten years working on Hubble Space Telescope and six more working on astronomy education, he struck out on his own as a writer. He has written two books, dozens of magazine articles, and 12 bazillion blog articles. He is a skeptic, and fights misuses of science as well as praising the wonder of real science.
Bad Astronomy was chosen as one of Time.com's Best Blogs of 2009. 
Open Lab 2008 is a collection of the best blog posts of the year, all in one place. Are you a science junkie? Yeah, you want it. -
-
Subscribe to BA using an RSS Feed
-
Death from the Skies!
Order a copy of Death from the Skies! from Amazon, Barnes and Noble, or Borders.
"If things worked the way I wanted them to, any reporter about to do another 'sensational' story on deadly meteors would consult this volume, and bang! common sense would find its way into the news. How strange would that world be?"
-- Adam Savage, Mythbusters"Reading this book is like getting punched in the face by Carl Sagan. Frightening, but oddly exhilarating."
-- Daniel H. Wilson, author of How to Survive a Robot Uprising -
Social/Networking/Cool Stuff
-
DISCOVERmagazine.com: Latest Articles on Space - DISCOVER Blogs: The Loom
May 7th, 2008 at 10:15 pm
If she starts weeping, he should probably see a doctorb (the “b” is for bargain).
May 7th, 2008 at 10:18 pm
I’m sorry… it looks more like a… wound!
May 7th, 2008 at 10:22 pm
A Bloody Mary?
May 7th, 2008 at 10:28 pm
I wish I’d thought of that, EvilBob.
May 7th, 2008 at 10:29 pm
I tough it was Jesus!
May 7th, 2008 at 10:32 pm
From the article: “The Roman Catholic Church has very strict guidelines regarding what is deemed an official sighting of the Virgin Mary.”
I’m kind of wondering what those rules are…
May 7th, 2008 at 10:42 pm
You beat me to it. If they actually were strict, there wouldn’t be any sightings at all.
Phil, don’t you dare quitting on us
May 7th, 2008 at 10:57 pm
Wow. Just… wow.
May 7th, 2008 at 10:59 pm
OMVM…
Someone has an over-active imagination. Too many communion wafers?
May 7th, 2008 at 11:01 pm
Cameron - “I’m kind of wondering what those rules are…”
From Wiki;
“Contrary to popular opinion, the truth of each miracle is meticulously examined not only from dogmatic and theological points of view, but also with the skepticism of science. Only after all other possible explanations have proven inadequate may the Church assume Divine intervention and declare the miracle worthy of veneration by the faithful (the Church does not, however, enjoin belief in any extra-Scriptural miracle as an article of faith or as necessary to salvation).”
I thought I had a link to actual doctrine..but cant find it. Will keep looking..
May 7th, 2008 at 11:08 pm
WHY WHY WHY WHHYYYYYYY DO THEY KEEP REPORTING THIS STUFF?!?!?!?!?!!?!?!?!?!?!!?? AAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!
(I’m sure the spam filter’s gonna catch this one…hehehe)
May 7th, 2008 at 11:11 pm
Oh.. This is interesting..
>>What is a miracle? Is it a violation of a law of nature? Didn’t people in the past believe in miracles only because they didn’t know much about science?<<
“A miracle may by defined as an event that occurs in nature but that has a cause lying outside nature, that is, a supernatural cause. Miracles are not violations of the laws of nature. The way we know if an event is a miracle is by seeing if it could have been caused by natural forces.
For example, when Jesus changed water to wine (John 2:1-11), it would have been impossible for random movements or any other natural stimuli to have effected this transubstantiation. If the water could not have turned into wine by natural means, the change must have had a supernatural cause. Since we know nature could not effect this change, we infer that a miracle took place. In fact, it is precisely because of our knowledge of science that we can identify miracles when they occur.
As C.S. Lewis pointed out, the Virgin Birth is only perceivable as a miracle if one first knows the laws of nature that virgins don’t normally give birth. Joseph understood this law of nature. When he discovered Mary was pregnant, he initially suspected her of unfaithfulness (Matt. 1:19). It took a visit from and angel of the Lord to convince him of the miraculous nature of Mary’s pregnancy.
To learn more about how eminently scientific it is to believe in miracles, get hold of these books: Miracles, by C.S. Lewis, Miracles: A Catholic View, by Ralph McInerny, Scaling the Secular City, by J.P. Moreland, and That You May Believe and Miracles and the Critical Mind, both by Colin Brown. Highly recommended are the now out-of-print works of Catholic apologist Arnold Lunn, Revolt Against Reason and And Yet So New.”
Source: http://www.newadvent.org/library/almanac_thisrock93.htm
/Disclaimer: I am not Catholic, nor religious..don’t shoot the messenger..
May 7th, 2008 at 11:19 pm
Can someone point out to me how this looks like … anything? All I can see is a six-foot giant invisible rabbit in profile standing upright looking to the right.
>> Since we know nature could not effect this change, we infer that a miracle took place. <<<
Uh, that’s not what I infer…
May 7th, 2008 at 11:21 pm
Regarding the “Congregation of the Causes for Saints”..
>>Assessing of miracles<<
“The miracle may go beyond the possibilities of nature either in the substance of the fact or in the subject, or only in the way it occurs. So three degrees of miracle are to be distinguished. The first degree is represented by resurrection from the dead (quoad substantiam). The second concerns the subject (quoad subiectum): the sickness of a person is judged incurable, in its course it can even have destroyed bones or vital organs; in this case not only is complete recovery noticed, but even wholesale reconstitution of the organs (restitutio in integrum). There is then a third degree (quoad modum): recovery from an illness, that treatment could only have achieved after a long period, happens instantaneously.”
Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congregation_for_the_Causes_of_Saints
/Is late.. I’m out.. ‘Nite, all..
May 7th, 2008 at 11:44 pm
Who will lay money that this will “miraculously heal” over a period of several weeks, leaving only severe scarring, (to remind him where he was touched by God).
May 7th, 2008 at 11:51 pm
The guy who fell off his bike and bounced 50 feet down the road has an reason for not being right in the head, but there is no excuse for the reporter (I use the term very loosely) who wrote this up. There is no story. All I see is a nasty gash and no one giving a damn.
May 7th, 2008 at 11:58 pm
You’ll all be singing a different tune when the Cathederal of Our Lady of the Gravel Rash is built on the site of the sacred crash and burn!
May 8th, 2008 at 12:05 am
“Oww oww oww, it hurts…. NO! Don’t heal it! … Here.. no.. don’t put sterilized gauze on my Virgin Mary wound!”
May 8th, 2008 at 12:15 am
I have said it before elsewhere: one day we are going to see that image of a turd someone claims (s)he sees the image of Jesus in….
May 8th, 2008 at 12:16 am
What is going on?! Is this the f$%&in’ middle ages? I so utterly and completely give up.
May 8th, 2008 at 12:45 am
I see a bunny rabbit standing on its hind legs, in profile, facing right.
May 8th, 2008 at 1:04 am
Yup, it’s a fat rabbit.
Surely the blessed hand of St. Peter of Cottontail is present.
May 8th, 2008 at 1:16 am
Virgin mary having her period in a biker’s foot. Awesome.
May 8th, 2008 at 2:18 am
The photo on the web page is a still from the video and depicts the wound after it changed its appearance.
The motorcyclist posted a photo of his wound on a motorcycle forum and someone replied that the wound resembled Mary. It was only then that the motorcyclist believed it was an apparition.
May 8th, 2008 at 2:45 am
tahlmora:
“For example, when Jesus changed water to wine (John 2:1-11), it would have been impossible for random movements or any other natural stimuli to have effected this transubstantiation. If the water could not have turned into wine by natural means, the change must have had a supernatural cause. Since we know nature could not effect this change, we infer that a miracle took place. In fact, it is precisely because of our knowledge of science that we can identify miracles when they occur.
As C.S. Lewis pointed out, the Virgin Birth is only perceivable as a miracle if one first knows the laws of nature that virgins don’t normally give birth. Joseph understood this law of nature. When he discovered Mary was pregnant, he initially suspected her of unfaithfulness (Matt. 1:19). It took a visit from and angel of the Lord to convince him of the miraculous nature of Mary’s pregnancy.”
One need look no further for perfect examples of “Begging the Question”.
“If the water could not have turned into wine by natural means, the change must have had a supernatural cause.”
Or… (and I realise that this may be a difficult concept for some people to grasp) it didn’t actually happen. The story is wrong, made-up, mis-heard, mis-translated, fictional…
May 8th, 2008 at 2:47 am
(Just to be clear: I’m not accusing anyone here of subscribing to credulous beliefs, just making the point, so to speak)
May 8th, 2008 at 3:32 am
I can see (sort of) the image of a woman as typically seen as a medieval, European depiction of Mary. Although she isn’t usually rendered in red. Perhaps what he really can see is the Scarlet Woman?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Babalon
May 8th, 2008 at 4:08 am
Kinda sucks for the guy though. People will be flocking from all over the be healed by poking his sore leg.
“Ow! Quit it!”
May 8th, 2008 at 5:02 am
When are these people “Leaving” us “Behind”? Sheesh. The second coming can’t come soon enough. To hell (or wherever) with all of them.
May 8th, 2008 at 5:23 am
Of all the places she could manifest herself, why in someone’s bloody leg? Why not on a piece of toasted bread, or in the salt runoff under an overpass, or in a window?
What really gets me is the people who set up a shrine at these sightings and bring flowers and light candles. To quote one of my students, “How dumber can you get?”
May 8th, 2008 at 5:24 am
The only thing that looks like is that it hurts.
May 8th, 2008 at 5:48 am
Wow, this guy needs a smack in the face, although he would probably see the Virgin Mary in the handprint left on his cheek, *sigh*
May 8th, 2008 at 5:50 am
Re: The “Water into Wine” ‘miracle’ - This ‘miracle’ appears daily. TO experience it for yourself, buy lots of wine and get trashed. Once you’re totally zonked, have someone telling you the water you’re drinking is actually wine. Voila. You’re too smashed to notice the difference.
And never forget, the steward in the story is a servant. Does the term “Yes-man” mean suggest something here?
As to the Wound Looking like the Virgin Mary: If by “wound” you meant “very”, by “looking” you mean “painful” and by “the Virgin Mary” you mean “injury”, then yes, yes it does.
May 8th, 2008 at 6:02 am
My favorite sendup of pareidolia:
From “A Boy Named Charlie Brown”, 1969 - Charles Schulz
“Lucy Van Pelt: Aren’t the clouds beautiful? They look like big balls of cotton. I could just lie here all day and watch them drift by. If you use your imagination, you can see lots of things in the cloud’s formations. What do you think you see, Linus?
Linus Van Pelt: Well, those clouds to me look like the map of the British Honduras on the Carribbean.
[points up]
Linus Van Pelt: That cloud up there looks a little like the profile of Thomas Eakins, the famous painter and sculptor. And that group of clouds over there
[points]
Linus Van Pelt: … gives me the impression of the Stoning of Stephen. I can see the Apostle Paul standing there to one side.
Lucy Van Pelt: Uh huh. That’s very good. What do you see in the clouds, Charlie Brown?
Charlie Brown: Well… I was going to say I saw a duckie and a horsie but I changed my mind. “
May 8th, 2008 at 6:20 am
@Barry: I will not feed the troll.
That said, I think this guy hit his head when he fell. All I see is a wound.
May 8th, 2008 at 6:36 am
I think we should cut his leg off and sell it on eBay. Then use the proceeds to by lots of wine, drink the wine, and, trough the miracle of kidney function, turn the wine into water.
Does anyone know his address?
May 8th, 2008 at 6:39 am
Looks like a Jedi to me.
May 8th, 2008 at 6:41 am
Some people blame Richard Dawkins for mocking religion, but from reading this article I am lead to think no one is able to mock a religion to the extent that believers mock themselves.
May 8th, 2008 at 7:09 am
I saw the FSM in a bowl of pasta last night. Where’s my 15 minutes of fame?
May 8th, 2008 at 7:42 am
Anybody thinking of Carl Hiaason’s Lucky You?
May 8th, 2008 at 7:45 am
I read somewhere — wish I could remember where — a “natural” explanation for turning water into wine. If the water were stored in wooden casks that had previously held wine, the water could absorb some of the flavor and coloring of the wine from the wood of the cask. Seems at least somewhat plausible to me. So perhaps it did happen, but wasn’t a miracle at all.
May 8th, 2008 at 8:11 am
…I see many things in there. Like blood. And a possible infection.
May 8th, 2008 at 8:22 am
looks like a jawa to me.
May 8th, 2008 at 8:31 am
Phil, it’s about time you put this lame wackiness to rest. Nothing more can be said about it that doesn’t bore one into a coma. Show us astronomical wonders and the occasional sci-fi flub, but please resist all urges to open the pareidolia case file again.
May 8th, 2008 at 8:42 am
OtherRob: FWIW, the water-into-wine transformation didn’t involve wooden casks according to the historical record (John 2:6-7). Stone jars used for purification ceremonies were used. It’s doubtful they ever contained wine before the transformation since that wasn’t their purpose. Specific mention of their material and purpose suggests that the author intended to discount speculation like yours.
May 8th, 2008 at 8:47 am
Pregnant woman sees Jesus in her Ultrasound.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,353230,00.html
May 8th, 2008 at 9:10 am
Thanks for the info, Gary. My knowledge of biblical history is not really that great….
May 8th, 2008 at 9:14 am
You heretics. I can’t believe none of you recognize this for what it is - it’s a sign from the Easter Bunny! That’s right, he wants you to know he’s real, and he sent a sign - a scrape in the shape of a man in a bunny suit!
May 8th, 2008 at 9:23 am
Oh come one! You blog about that one, but not about the ketchup pareidolia I sent you? I’m hurt.
May 8th, 2008 at 10:38 am
I see a moron.
May 8th, 2008 at 10:47 am
I thought I saw a puddy tat!
I did! I did saw a puddy tat!
Call NBC.
May 8th, 2008 at 10:54 am
I skinned my knee pretty badly while sliding into second playing softball. As it healed, the scab really resembled a typical local news reporter. It was uncanny.
May 8th, 2008 at 11:05 am
@Shoeshine…
Not a troll, just someone who is passionately in love with someone who is devoted to her faith, and tired of constantly reading them mocked by militant atheists.
Shame, because I really used to like this blog.
May 8th, 2008 at 11:16 am
I do not see the virgin mary or anyone else in his wound. I see a scrape.
May 8th, 2008 at 12:44 pm
WHY WHY WHY WHHYYYYYYY DO THEY KEEP REPORTING THIS STUFF?!?!
Because it’s funny. Bill Handel on KFI radio in Los Angeles reported on it this morning, and he and the others on the show made fun of it. Handel said he wants to see a story of someone taking their dog for a walk, and then reporting that the Virgin Mary appeared in the poo.
I’m sure they will get some emails over that one.
http://a1135.g.akamai.net/f/1135/18227/1h/cchannel.download.akamai.com/18227/podcast/LOSANGELES-CA/KFI-AM/HOTN050708.mp3
It was 45 minutes into the hour, but the MP3s don;t have the commercials, so… dunno. It’s in there somewhere.
May 8th, 2008 at 12:45 pm
Oops. Never mind on that link. It’s the May 7th show. The May 8th show isn’t up yet.
May 8th, 2008 at 12:48 pm
Water to wine - The Natural Way
1. Plant grape vines
2. Water grape vines regularly
3. Pick grapes and press
4. Add yeats and allow to ferment
5. Drink wine
May 8th, 2008 at 12:49 pm
Add YEAST, not YEATS. Yeats is long dead, and will not help with the fermentation process.
May 8th, 2008 at 1:13 pm
“There has been no word on if the Diocese of Monterey will investigate Lipton’s leg as a legitimate apparition of the Virgin Mary.”
Sport the unstated assumption.
May 8th, 2008 at 1:21 pm
thanx man
May 8th, 2008 at 2:03 pm
It’s a Pooka! Was the guy’s name “Elwood” by chance?
May 8th, 2008 at 3:30 pm
Barry,
We’re tired of constantly being accused of mocking people’s faith. Exactly where in the Bible does it say that Jesus or Mary or (insert preferred biblical figure here) will appear in a person’s wound / tortilla / toast / shower curtain / dogs butt?
Incidentally, have you considered how ridiculous the idea of Mary or Jesus appearing in a motorcyclists wound is? On a church wall; that makes sense. In a wound or a dog’s butt; care to explain that one?
http://bitsandpieces1.blogspot.com/2006/09/jesus-image-found-in-dogs-butt.html
Just in case you thought I was making up the bit about the dog’s butt.
May 8th, 2008 at 3:32 pm
Addendum to the above: If you don’t like the “mocking” and the post is about pareidolia, don’t click. You don’t get offended and everyone is happy.
May 8th, 2008 at 5:46 pm
It’s perfectly possible for water to turn into wine through quantum fluctuations. It’s staggeringly unlikely, but it’s possible. Which renders the whole miracle judging process redundant. Less contentiously, the process suffers from the obvious flaw that as scientific knowledge progresses, things that were previously miracles become naturally explicable events, and once again you’re left with a God of the Gaps. This seems to be one of those areas where the Catholic hierarchy realises the philosophical absurdity of a doctrine, hence all the tests and caveats in the official rules, but finds it too useful to relinquish altogether.
May 8th, 2008 at 9:59 pm
Yeats may be long dead, but he appeared today in the crossword puzzle in my local paper (65 down, I think it was.) Coincidence? I think not!
May 9th, 2008 at 2:42 am
Yeah, I have to admit I’m getting a tad bored with BA’s fascination for pareidolia, but still I just can’t not read these entries either… :p
May 9th, 2008 at 5:33 am
@Ginger: It may well be ’staggeringly unlikely’, but on the other hand, if he had access to Zaphod Beeblebrox’s Infinite Improbability Drive - and after all, he is the gun of sod, so he ought to have access to *everything* - then water into wine becomes highly probable. And you thought it was impossible - hah!
May 9th, 2008 at 6:50 am
@Barry: Sorry, I didn’t appreciate your sarcasm.
May 9th, 2008 at 8:10 pm
So I’m not seeing the virgin mary. Is it right next to the giant oval shaped scab that looks nothing like a person?
May 11th, 2008 at 2:36 pm
Road rash……….the Stigmata for the 21st Century!
I’d like to see him try to sell this apparition on eBay.
Uhhhhhhhh……..
………on second thought……..
………Never mind. It’s gross enough already.
No doubt that any shrine/church/cathedral erected in honor of this miracle will recruit its clergy from the ranks of the Hell’s Angels.
June 4th, 2008 at 12:05 pm
I know it’s late, but I was on vacation in Australia and am only now reading the Bad Astronomy backlog. I’m surprised nobody else said it, though, so let me just say…
‘Zounds!