Stigmatist's Video - What are your thoughts?

[randomusername]

Sounds like blatant lying to take advantage of the beliefs of the faithful.

 

[Sgroh]

I fully agree, Randomusername. Thanks for posting.

Now that Dr. Castanon’s credibility problems have been pulled out into the sun for all to see, Ron Tesoriero and Tim Francis would like to distance himself from him. They have not used him in recent investigations and are not “reliant” on him for establishing the truth of their miraculous claims. In fact, Ron and Tim claim to be as “disappointed” as me that the good doctor is unable to verify a single one of his numerous alleged achievements.

I beg to differ. Are they disappointed enough to stop selling any of the videos and books that feature his testimony? Are they disappointed enough to refund the money that countless people spent on that merchandise…partly (or even entirely) because they were persuaded by the testimony of this “renowned” scientist. I suspect not.

The lack of research into this doctor was shameful. And it is only our Christian spirits that are allowing us to suspend our worries that the deception could extend far beyond Mr. Castanon himself. As I stated before, this “Doctor” is the ONLY expert whose biography is listed on the YouShallBelieve website and his link with Ron Tesoriero is deep and extends back over decades. His willingness to use this “Doctor’s” word to sell products to the faithful means that he has tethered his reputation to this man. He cannot simply shrug it off and claim to be as disappointed as we are. Do others on this forum agree?

 

[randomusername]

I fully agree, Randomusername. Thanks for posting.

Now that Dr. Castanon’s credibility problems have been pulled out into the sun for all to see, Ron Tesoriero and Tim Francis would like to distance himself from him. They have not used him in recent investigations and are not “reliant” on him for establishing the truth of their miraculous claims. In fact, Ron and Tim claim to be as “disappointed” as me that the good doctor is unable to verify a single one of his numerous alleged achievements.

I beg to differ. Are they disappointed enough to stop selling any of the videos and books that feature his testimony? Are they disappointed enough to refund the money that countless people spent on that merchandise…partly (or even entirely) because they were persuaded by the testimony of this “renowned” scientist. I suspect not.

The lack of research into this doctor was shameful. And it is only our Christian spirits that are allowing us to suspend our worries that the deception could extend far beyond Mr. Castanon himself. As I stated before, this “Doctor” is the ONLY expert whose biography is listed on the YouShallBelieve website and his link with Ron Tesoriero is deep and extends back over decades. His willingness to use this “Doctor’s” word to sell products to the faithful means that he has tethered his reputation to this man. He cannot simply shrug it off and claim to be as disappointed as we are. Do others on this forum agree?

Yep. They are just covering their asses and praying(if they even are Christian, which I doubt) that this won’t spread.

 

[josh987654321]

Sounds like blatant lying to take advantage of the beliefs of the faithful.

I don’t believe so.

As I said before, I believe the absence of evidence isn’t evidence of absence.

Yep. They are just covering their asses and praying(if they even are Christian, which I doubt) that this won’t spread.

Not me. I simply have not replied as there isn’t much more I believe I can add, mainly for me, growing up with the reputable journalist Mike Willesee, he holds much weight with me, and reading the writings, it holds much more weight with me.

Some of what has been said regarding Dr Castanon has been a little bit unsettling, however, even if it was worst case scenario regarding Dr Castanon, I don’t see how it undermines the Stigmata of Katya or her writings or the Eucharistic Miracle?

Anyway, I believe the more information the better, thus please feel free to share anything you find on this.

I hope this has helped

God Bless

Thank you for reading
Josh

 

[Sgroh]

Josh, you have mentioned that “absence of evidence isn’t evidence of absence.” Do you take follow this same advice when people make exaggerated claims regarding herbal supplements or other products? The burden of proof is on the person making the claim, not on you (the customer) to disprove it. I think a much more appropriate quote would be “That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.”

Ron and Tim Francis are connected to a group known as Our Loving Mother’s Children. A Catholic non-profit that grew out of the ENORMOUS amount of believers who came to the Georgia farm of a local nurse named Nancy Fowler who claimed Mary would appear to her. Once the news was out, a business man from Virginia named Bob Hughes showed up on the scene and bought up the surrounding property. This became Our Loving Mother’s Children. Eventually, this non-profit got into legal arguments with the divinely inspired Nancy Fowler and accused her of filing frivolous complaints against them as a strategy to drive up legal costs and force a settlement. The court threw out the accusation. In fact, the court soon grew weary of all the legal wrangling and the judge told the opposing attorneys, “The case is over. Take your medicine and swallow it and go home.”

Now here is the most interesting part: In one proceeding, the presiding judge commented, “You know money was hauled off from out there in black garbage bags for years. It went somewhere. I don’t know who got it. Still don’t know who got it.” Money, Josh…bags and bags of money.

The archdiocese of Atlanta wanted nothing to do with Nancy Fowler and OLMC for a reason, Josh. I have nothing to gain from my efforts to expose these facts. Ron, however, has a book he would love to sell you. Worth contemplating.

God Bless.

 

[josh987654321]

Josh, you have mentioned that “absence of evidence isn’t evidence of absence.” Do you follow this same advice when people make exaggerated claims regarding herbal supplements or other products? The burden of proof is on the person making the claim, not on you (the customer) to disprove it. I think a much more appropriate quote would be “That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.”

Hi Sgroh,

I Completely Agree.

I believe I have been presented with evidence in ‘favor’ of this. If I wasn’t presented with compelling evidence to begin with, I believe I would never have looked at these writings or given them any thought, as I believe there are dozens of writings all over the internet claiming to be from Jesus and Mary etc and I dismiss all of them unless I have ‘compelling evidence’ and even then I believe I try to tread carefully.

I totally agree with your statement “That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.”

On the contrary, my view at the moment is “That which has been accepted with compelling evidence, can’t be dismissed without compelling evidence” and that’s why I believe I used the quote *“absence of evidence isn’t evidence of absence.” *

Ron and Tim Francis are connected to a group known as Our Loving Mother’s Children. A Catholic non-profit that grew out of the ENORMOUS amount of believers who came to the Georgia farm of a local nurse named Nancy Fowler who claimed Mary would appear to her. Once the news was out, a business man from Virginia named Bob Hughes showed up on the scene and bought up the surrounding property. This became Our Loving Mother’s Children. Eventually, this non-profit got into legal arguments with the divinely inspired Nancy Fowler and accused her of filing frivolous complaints against them as a strategy to drive up legal costs and force a settlement. The court threw out the accusation. In fact, the court soon grew weary of all the legal wrangling and the judge told the opposing attorneys, “The case is over. Take your medicine and swallow it and go home.”

Now here is the most interesting part: In one proceeding, the presiding judge commented, “You know money was hauled off from out there in black garbage bags for years. It went somewhere. I don’t know who got it. Still don’t know who got it.” Money, Josh…bags and bags of money.

The archdiocese of Atlanta wanted nothing to do with Nancy Fowler and OLMC for a reason, Josh. I have nothing to gain from my efforts to expose these facts. Ron, however, has a book he would love to sell you. Worth contemplating.

God Bless.

Your right, it is worth contemplating and looking into, May I ask where you heard/got this from? And I believe as I said before, ‘absence of evidence isn’t evidence of absence’ thus regarding the ‘bags of money’ claim, surely they would be easily able to find out simply by Nancy Fowler’s Assets before and after right?

Unfortunately I don’t know much at all about Nancy Fowler, other than I know it is connected to Katya and what we are discussing here.

And especially if you could ask others more closely related to this such as Ron, Tim, or Mike and let us know of their feedback, that would be most helpful. As before I can make an informed decision, I believe I must hear both sides. Proverbs 18:17 He who states his case first seems right, until the other comes and examines him.

Anyway, these are just some of my thoughts.

Thank you again for your posts and research Sgroh, I very much appreciated it.

May we be inspired by Socrates ‘following the evidence wherever it leads’

God Bless You.

Thank you for reading
Josh

 

[JohnJones]

Ron sure isn’t making ‘bags of money’ selling books and video. Taking Amazon as a measure of sales, Reason to Believe A Personal Story, on Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #68,963. From what I have researched, you have to be above 10,000 to make any money. amazon.com/God-Delusion-Richard-Dawkins-ebook/dp/B003JTHWJQ/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1428199700&sr=1-1&keywords=the+god+delusion is Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #2,612, Richard Dawkins is making some money from the aetheists! I bet he thanks God for his good fortune “If there were no God there would be no atheists”.

However Mike Willesee might have made a good amount of money on the Fox special “Science tests faith”.

Seriously, this issue with Castañón’s credentials seems very peripheral to me. How much of a scientist do you have to be to take a sample and give it to a lab? We all recognize he has a credibility issue but I am with Josh on this one in that I don’t see it discrediting the findings of Mike Willesee and Ron Tesoriero. If the devil is in the detail so is Jesus - you can’t fool a good researcher by dropping blood or heart tissue onto a host. If you read the book and see the tests you won’t write it off as a contrived hoax too easily.

Also Ms Rivas’s writings are freely available at loveandmercy.org/english-books/. I find them just fascinating, enlightening, inspiring. I have read Anne Catherine Emmerich’s writings and although they were good I find Ms. Rivas writings more deeply personal and more contemporary references.

Josh, I looked at some of your other posts besides these and I think you are refreshingly objective and informative. Thanks for your contributions. There are far fewer of your type on this board than I expected. So many take a position on issues like this and look for evidence to support or discredit it rather than going where the evidence leads them as you do.

Kind regards to all,

John

 

[Sgroh]

John & Josh,

Sorry for the late response. I am a bit surprised and confused by how much it is taking to convince you that there are major credibility problems with these people.

John writes, “this issue with Castañón’s credentials seems very peripheral to me.” I do not see how you reached this conclusion. Ron Tesoriero has worked on and off with this man for over a decade (by his own admission) and he can’t even tell me when or where he earned his PhD. This doctor is the ONLY scientist in the room for the stigmata event with Katya Rivas and he may not even be a scientist. For all we know, he may not have a degree from anywhere. As you should see from earlier posts, I have been in direct contact with both Ron and the “doctor” himself and neither of them would answer that most basic question -“when and where did he earn his alleged degree.” In fact, there was not a single credential in his long list of alleged achievements that I could verify…and I put serious time and effort into it. How is that not a problem? I think it speaks volumes about the level of dedication to the truth that has gone on in this situation. If I believed I was about to film a true miracle, I would make darn certain that my expert in the room was an actual expert. Ron tied his own credibility to this man…and has openly and repeatedly vouched for him…yet he can’t even tell someone where the man earned his degree? That is simply silly beyond words.

Josh asks if I “could ask others more closely related to this such as Ron, Tim, or Mike and let us know of their feedback.”

I am confused. Did you not read the earlier posts in this thread, Josh? I have spoken with Tim at length and had repeated e-mail correspondence with both him and Ron. I have called colleges and universities, enlisted a friend with an actual PhD to help me do research and read the actual court case between Nancy Fowler and OLMC. Everything points to these claims being spurious. Look, it is impossible for me to prove that what occurs in the video is fake. I went after the one thing I could objectively research and confirm…the level of credibility of one of their principle witnesses, Mr. Castañón. Though I was skeptical, even I did not expect that I would be unable to verify a single claim about his credentials. It is impossible for a “renowned scientist” to have zero evidence of his existence within the scientific community. If this glaring problem with the ONLY expert whose bio appears on Tim’s “You Shall Believe” website does not send up major signal flags for both of you…then I am at a loss.

Respectfully, Steve

 

[JohnJones]

Steve, I appreciate what you are saying. Regarding the book “Reason to Believe A Personal Story” sold on Amazon, recall the review by “christopher catania” titled “Is This Real?”. I commented, then you, then me, then another person. Now I see my second comment was removed on March 17th. Why?

The text I wrote included these points: Of all people in various professions I would expect a lawyer to verify credentials of people to assure a credible witness. Furthermore, I would not buy this book until the author responded to this issue.

Now let us look at the role of Dr Ricardo Castanon. Quoted from youshallbelieve.com/about-us/bios/ and taken from Ron’s biography: “…In 1992 he became interested in examining claimed mystical phenomena in the Catholic Church through the eyes of science and met Dr Ricardo Castanon who had a similar interest. Ron then began filming and making documentaries on the research work of Dr. Castanon. Those documentaries became the inspiration for the prime time television special ‘Signs from God, Science Tests Faith’ that was produced by senior Australian Journalist, Mike Willesee, and broadcast in 1999 worldwide by the Fox Network. Ron is now working with Mike Willesee in the making of another special documentary which follows ‘the trail of the blood of Christ’ through history and through science.”

In the Fox Network’s documentary I just reviewed the section on Ms. Rivas’s stigmata and when the interviewer asked about the possibility that the wounds were self inflicted he did not cite any expert despite Castanon’s presence. I think it would have been good to have a doctor of medicine there as in a general practitioner to certify that the wounds were not self inflicted. Perhaps Mike Willesee did not think it was necessary? Although I think it doesn’t take even a doctor to know if they are self inflicted, it would be good to defend against skeptics.

I would expect Mike Willesee made a good amount of money for that production. I never heard he donated any of his income to charity from it. If he produces another documentary on a major network, indeed there may be ‘bags of money’ to be made.

So Ricardo Castanon is peripheral when it comes to scientific tests since he doesn’t do the tests though he delivered the blood for at least some of the tests. Although you don’t need a PhD to do this, if you claim to have one you should be prepared to state when and where. How about this:

Ron Tesoriero, will you please respectfully address this issue on this forum?
Mike Willesee, do you feel it is ethical for you to earn money off an alleged miracle from God?

To get an idea of how visible this discussion is, google “rivas stigmata” and see skepdic.com is the first entry, then 2 youtube entries of the Fox special, then this link: forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=191931. I just posted a link on that old thread to this thread.

Thanks,

John

 

[Sgroh]

“The text I wrote included these points: Of all people in various professions I would expect a lawyer to verify credentials of people to assure a credible witness. Furthermore, I would not buy this book until the author responded to this issue.”

Thanks for responding, John. I fully agree and am happy to hear you say it. I just think that it strains credulity to think that Ron managed to be utterly unaware of “Dr” Ricardo Castanon’s inability or unwillingness to verify any of his scientific credentials. Again, they worked side by side on numerous occasions over many years. That leaves two possible scenarios: The first is that Ron is easily duped…the second is that Ron knows of the problem but benefits from the testimony of this “renowned scientist.” Neither story creates a feeling of trust.

 

[josh987654321]

Sorry for the late response.

x2

I am a bit surprised and confused by how much it is taking to convince you that there are major credibility problems with these people.

It’s my understanding that there is only a credibility problem with Dr Castanon’s credentials which I believe is being extrapolated to taint everything and all involved.

John writes, “this issue with Castañón’s credentials seems very peripheral to me.” I do not see how you reached this conclusion.

I have also reached this same conclusion. Please don’t get me wrong, it does certainly send up some red flags, but than taking the thing as a whole to be fraudulent, also sends up several red flags, far more I believe.

Ron Tesoriero has worked on and off with this man for over a decade (by his own admission) and he can’t even tell me when or where he earned his PhD. This doctor is the ONLY scientist in the room for the stigmata event with Katya Rivas and he may not even be a scientist. For all we know, he may not have a degree from anywhere. As you should see from earlier posts, I have been in direct contact with both Ron and the “doctor” himself and neither of them would answer that most basic question -“when and where did he earn his alleged degree.” In fact, there was not a single credential in his long list of alleged achievements that I could verify…and I put serious time and effort into it. How is that not a problem? I think it speaks volumes about the level of dedication to the truth that has gone on in this situation. If I believed I was about to film a true miracle, I would make darn certain that my expert in the room was an actual expert. Ron tied his own credibility to this man…and has openly and repeatedly vouched for him…yet he can’t even tell someone where the man earned his degree? That is simply silly beyond words.

I absolutely believe this is a problem, but I believe, even if it is worst case scenario with Dr Castanon’s credentials, I don’t see how it ‘debunks’ the stigmata as I don’t believe you need a qualified scientist to see whether wounds were self inflicted or not. I believe you simply need a reputable eye witness and for me, Mike Willesee is that reputable eye witness.

Josh asks if I “could ask others more closely related to this such as Ron, Tim, or Mike and let us know of their feedback.”

I am confused. Did you not read the earlier posts in this thread, Josh?

I have read them.

Please continue to next post -

 

[josh987654321]

I have spoken with Tim at length and had repeated e-mail correspondence with both him and Ron.

In an email to me on January 5, 2015 you had raised questions about Dr Castanon’s credentials.

On January 6 , I responded to you by saying that over the past 20 years or so he had written numerous books and on each he had written of his qualifications ,where he gained them and the work that he had done in his specialist field. I also said that I had no reason to doubt him.

Nevertheless, not knowing the answers to the questions you had asked , I obtained and forwarded to you by email on January 8 , Mr Castanon’s email address so that you could put to him directly your questions.

Only on January 21, did I received a copy of Mr. Castanon’s response to you. Mr Willesee and I are just as disappointed as you are to notice that Mr Castanon has not answered your questions about his PhD. This is of concern to us.

Mr Willesee and I want to make the matter of our association with Mr.Castanon clear to you.
While Mr. Castanon did introduce us to some subject matters for our investigation, we have not had involvement with him in our investigations in recent years and we have worked independently of him . In no case that we have examined are we reliant on his claimed professionalism as a neuropsychologist to establish a case’s genuineness.

I have already gone to some length in my email to you of January 4 to show that the case for the authenticity of the Stigmata of Katya Rivas is clearly made out without Mr.Castanon . In my book Reason to Believe in the Chapter on the Stigmata of Katya Rivas there is not even any mention of Mr Castanon.

In relation to the cases of the Bleeding Statue of Cochabamba and the Eucharistic phenomenon of Buenos Aires , Mike Willesee and I have been investigating those cases for many years independently of any involvement of Mr Castanon. The full extent of that work , the names of professionals that have been involved and their reports are comprehensively contained in the book I have recently published “UNSEEN” ( Tesoriero and Han). unseen.net.au/

Some of those professionals upon which the authenticity of our work depends and from some of whom we have filmed interviews include , New York Forensic Pathologist and Cardiologist Dr Frederick Zugibe , San Francisco Forensic Pathologist Dr Robert Lawrence ,Dr Thomas Loy, (University of Queensland Australia}, Histopathologist Dr Richard Haskell , (Sydney Australia), Dr John Walker (Sydney University), Forensic pathologist Dr Peter Ellis (Sydney University) , Forensic Pathologist Professor Angelo Fiori ( Department Legal Medicine, Gemelli Hospital Rome ), and Professor Sudhir Sinha ( Gentest, USA), Dr Susanne Hummel .(University of Gottingen .Germany), Professor Odoardo Linoli ( Sienna Italy).
These cases do not rely on Mr. Castanon in any way for our establishment of authenticity.

I have called colleges and universities, enlisted a friend with an actual PhD to help me do research and read the actual court case between Nancy Fowler and OLMC. Everything points to these claims being spurious. Look, it is impossible for me to prove that what occurs in the video is fake. I went after the one thing I could objectively research and confirm…the level of credibility of one of their principle witnesses, Mr. Castañón. Though I was skeptical, even I did not expect that I would be unable to verify a single claim about his credentials. It is impossible for a “renowned scientist” to have zero evidence of his existence within the scientific community. If this glaring problem with the ONLY expert whose bio appears on Tim’s “You Shall Believe” website does not send up major signal flags for both of you…then I am at a loss.

Respectfully, Steve

Like I said, some of which has been mentioned does send up some red flags, however, If I accept your conclusion as true, than I believe this also sends up red flags; far more red flags.

For example, may I ask how the several professionals quoted below who make far more extraordinary claims from their work than Dr Castanon fit into your conclusion? If your right, than I believe these should also be spurious.

Some of those professionals upon which the authenticity of our work depends and from some of whom we have filmed interviews include , New York Forensic Pathologist and Cardiologist Dr Frederick Zugibe , San Francisco Forensic Pathologist Dr Robert Lawrence ,Dr Thomas Loy, (University of Queensland Australia}, Histopathologist Dr Richard Haskell , (Sydney Australia), Dr John Walker (Sydney University), Forensic pathologist Dr Peter Ellis (Sydney University) , Forensic Pathologist Professor Angelo Fiori ( Department Legal Medicine, Gemelli Hospital Rome ), and Professor Sudhir Sinha ( Gentest, USA), Dr Susanne Hummel .(University of Gottingen .Germany), Professor Odoardo Linoli ( Sienna Italy).

These cases do not rely on Mr. Castanon in any way for our establishment of authenticity.

If you find anything more, please come and let us know Sgroh, I appreciate the work you and JohnJones have already done, and if I find anything more, I will do likewise.

I hope this has helped

God Bless you

Thank you for reading
Josh

 

[josh987654321]

Ron sure isn’t making ‘bags of money’ selling books and video. Taking Amazon as a measure of sales, Reason to Believe A Personal Story, on Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #68,963. From what I have researched, you have to be above 10,000 to make any money. amazon.com/God-Delusion-Richard-Dawkins-ebook/dp/B003JTHWJQ/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1428199700&sr=1-1&keywords=the+god+delusion is Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #2,612, Richard Dawkins is making some money from the aetheists! I bet he thanks God for his good fortune “If there were no God there would be no atheists”.

However Mike Willesee might have made a good amount of money on the Fox special “Science tests faith”.

Seriously, this issue with Castañón’s credentials seems very peripheral to me. How much of a scientist do you have to be to take a sample and give it to a lab? We all recognize he has a credibility issue but I am with Josh on this one in that I don’t see it discrediting the findings of Mike Willesee and Ron Tesoriero. If the devil is in the detail so is Jesus - you can’t fool a good researcher by dropping blood or heart tissue onto a host. If you read the book and see the tests you won’t write it off as a contrived hoax too easily.

Also Ms Rivas’s writings are freely available at loveandmercy.org/english-books/. I find them just fascinating, enlightening, inspiring. I have read Anne Catherine Emmerich’s writings and although they were good I find Ms. Rivas writings more deeply personal and more contemporary references.

Josh, I looked at some of your other posts besides these and I think you are refreshingly objective and informative. Thanks for your contributions. There are far fewer of your type on this board than I expected. So many take a position on issues like this and look for evidence to support or discredit it rather than going where the evidence leads them as you do.

Kind regards to all,

John

x2

I agree.

Thank you & God Bless you

Josh

 

[josh987654321]

Steve, I appreciate what you are saying. Regarding the book “Reason to Believe A Personal Story” sold on Amazon, recall the review by “christopher catania” titled “Is This Real?”. I commented, then you, then me, then another person. Now I see my second comment was removed on March 17th. Why?

The text I wrote included these points: Of all people in various professions I would expect a lawyer to verify credentials of people to assure a credible witness. Furthermore, I would not buy this book until the author responded to this issue.

I believe the following is the official response by Ron Tesoriero regarding this issue thus far.

Click on the link below to read and print the e-mail:
dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/54984651/Ron%20Tes/Ron%20e-mail%20to%20Steve.docx

Now let us look at the role of Dr Ricardo Castanon. Quoted from youshallbelieve.com/about-us/bios/ and taken from Ron’s biography: “…In 1992 he became interested in examining claimed mystical phenomena in the Catholic Church through the eyes of science and met Dr Ricardo Castanon who had a similar interest. Ron then began filming and making documentaries on the research work of Dr. Castanon. Those documentaries became the inspiration for the prime time television special ‘Signs from God, Science Tests Faith’ that was produced by senior Australian Journalist, Mike Willesee, and broadcast in 1999 worldwide by the Fox Network. Ron is now working with Mike Willesee in the making of another special documentary which follows ‘the trail of the blood of Christ’ through history and through science.”

In the Fox Network’s documentary I just reviewed the section on Ms. Rivas’s stigmata and when the interviewer asked about the possibility that the wounds were self inflicted he did not cite any expert despite Castanon’s presence. I think it would have been good to have a doctor of medicine there as in a general practitioner to certify that the wounds were not self inflicted. Perhaps Mike Willesee did not think it was necessary? Although I think it doesn’t take even a doctor to know if they are self inflicted, it would be good to defend against skeptics.

Regarding the Stigmata, I believe Mike Willesee took blood samples in order to show they were real, and also witnessed them in order to make sure they were not self inflicted, I believe he also made mention the fact that within 24 hours the wounds were completely healed and smooth to the touch, claiming that even if they were self inflicted, it wouldn’t explain how they healed so well and so quickly.

I would expect Mike Willesee made a good amount of money for that production. I never heard he donated any of his income to charity from it. If he produces another documentary on a major network, indeed there may be ‘bags of money’ to be made.

It’s my understanding that much has been spent on the many studies regarding Eucharistic Miracles in their book ‘Unseen’ although, I wouldn’t know how much was made nor where it’s gone.

So Ricardo Castanon is peripheral when it comes to scientific tests since he doesn’t do the tests though he delivered the blood for at least some of the tests. Although you don’t need a PhD to do this, if you claim to have one you should be prepared to state when and where.

True. However, I don’t know how difficult it would be for Dr Castanon to produce sufficient proof of credentials depending on where and when they were earned given the advance in technology. I doubt much, if any, was stored electronically back then.

How about this:

Ron Tesoriero, will you please respectfully address this issue on this forum?

Would be very helpful, but I doubt it will happen over an anonymous forum board.

Mike Willesee, do you feel it is ethical for you to earn money off an alleged miracle from God?

I don’t know whether he is, or if he is how much or where it’s gone. My guess is that he probably has earned money from the documentary etc and id say it certainly would have gone into the costs of production and that much has probably gone into their continued efforts in their book ‘unseen’ but idk, this is just my guess.

To get an idea of how visible this discussion is, google “rivas stigmata” and see skepdic.com is the first entry, then 2 youtube entries of the Fox special, then this link: forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=191931. I just posted a link on that old thread to this thread.

Thanks,

John

God Bless you

Thank you for reading
Josh

 

[Sgroh]

“True. However, I don’t know how difficult it would be for Dr Castanon to produce sufficient proof of credentials depending on where and when they were earned given the advance in technology. I doubt much, if any, was stored electronically back then.” - Josh

Josh, I must respectfully state that this recent quote from you above illustrates the level of motivated reasoning that is evident in your latest posts. Let’s be clear about what you are stating. You are suggesting that a “renowned doctor” who allegedly has 400 scientific articles to his credit and has lectured at universities throughout the world…might have trouble verifying his credentials. This is simply an unreasonable assertion. Also, it utterly ignores the fact that I have had direct e-mail contact with Mr. Castanon. Forget “sufficient proof” for a moment. He would not make a claim as to when and where he earned his advanced degree (or any degree for that matter) when directly asked. Why is he unwilling to even make a claim? Have you ever in your entire life met a professional human being who would not answer you if you asked them where they earned their degree? I have not…until now.

You also posted this comment: “It’s my understanding that there is only a credibility problem with Dr Castanon’s credentials which I believe is being extrapolated to taint everything and all involved.”

So, I assume you are suggesting that a well educated lawyer and a bright television producer (both eager to prove a miracle to a skeptical world) might accidentally or negligently enlist the help of an expert who was not an actual expert. Again, this seems like an unreasonable assumption. Dr. Ricardo Castanon was not at that event because he brought lunch. He was specifically enlisted to be the skeptical scientific witness that would lend his expertise to testing the truth of the claims. Do you think a hard nosed reporter and a savvy lawyer simply opened a phone book and picked a name to find this guy, Josh; no interview, no checking of credentials? I repeat, Ron has worked with this man on multiple occasions over many many years. I personally have asked Ron (via e-mail) to tell me when and where the doctor earned his degree and he could not/would not do that. Again, are you saying that a lawyer would tie his credibility to another man by vouching for him in both word and print without every verifying his academic background? I find that to be another unreasonable conclusion. The choice of this “doctor” as an expert to this stigmata event absolutely taints all involved. Science can’t test faith without a legitimate scientific examination occurring…and one did not occur. You are now choosing to accept the hearsay claims of people who have a financial stake in the story.

Let me end by saying there is a difference between being cynical and being skeptical. Skepticism is the chastity of the intellect. It is unwise to simply swallow the claims of people around you…particularly claims by people who stand to benefit financially from those claims. Do a google search on Uri Geller. He can bend spoons and move compass needles right in front of your face. If he claimed the blessed Mary gave him the power to do this, would you automatically assume his “powers” were a miracle? Do a wikipedia search on Travis Walton, the American logger who claimed he was abducted by aliens. Five of his co-workers claimed they saw it happen. Should we believe this too? If not, why are we granting special dispensation to the hearsay claims of Ron and Mike?

Sincerely - Steve

 

[josh987654321]

“True. However, I don’t know how difficult it would be for Dr Castanon to produce sufficient proof of credentials depending on where and when they were earned given the advance in technology. I doubt much, if any, was stored electronically back then.” - Josh

Josh, I must respectfully state that this recent quote from you above illustrates the level of motivated reasoning that is evident in your latest posts.

Okay.

Let’s be clear about what you are stating. You are suggesting that a “renowned doctor” who allegedly has 400 scientific articles to his credit and has lectured at universities throughout the world…might have trouble verifying his credentials.

If none of it has been electronically stored, than absolutely. However, we can only go on the information we have or lack thereof, which is why I am willing to concede with you that it could be worst case scenario with Dr Castanon’s credentials, which is certainly unsettling and sends up some red flags.

This is simply an unreasonable assertion.

Could you please explain to me why?

Also, it utterly ignores the fact that I have had direct e-mail contact with Mr. Castanon. Forget “sufficient proof” for a moment. He would not make a claim as to when and where he earned his advanced degree (or any degree for that matter) when directly asked. Why is he unwilling to even make a claim? Have you ever in your entire life met a professional human being who would not answer you if you asked them where they earned their degree? I have not…until now.

I haven’t asked anyone before, and depending on who they are or how I asked, I could certainly see it possible, however over something like this, I would say it’s unlikely.

You also posted this comment: “It’s my understanding that there is only a credibility problem with Dr Castanon’s credentials which I believe is being extrapolated to taint everything and all involved.”

So, I assume you are suggesting that a well educated lawyer and a bright television producer (both eager to prove a miracle to a skeptical world) might accidentally or negligently enlist the help of an expert who was not an actual expert. Again, this seems like an unreasonable assumption.

I don’t believe that’s an unreasonable assumption.

Dr. Ricardo Castanon was not at that event because he brought lunch.

haha of course.

However I believe there is nothing in the Stigmata that required Dr Castanon’s expertise as a neuropsychologist to establish the case’s genuineness.

He was specifically enlisted to be the skeptical scientific witness that would lend his expertise to testing the truth of the claims. Do you think a hard nosed reporter and a savvy lawyer simply opened a phone book and picked a name to find this guy, Josh; no interview, no checking of credentials? I repeat, Ron has worked with this man on multiple occasions over many many years. I personally have asked Ron (via e-mail) to tell me when and where the doctor earned his degree and he could not/would not do that. Again, are you saying that a lawyer would tie his credibility to another man by vouching for him in both word and print without ever verifying his academic background? I find that to be another unreasonable conclusion.

I believe I can see how it could happen and I don’t believe it’s an unreasonable conclusion, however I believe your right that it does taint many involved.

The choice of this “doctor” as an expert to this stigmata event absolutely taints all involved.

Okay.

Science can’t test faith without a legitimate scientific examination occurring…and one did not occur.

This I believe is not true. This is where I am trying to point out that if your conclusion is correct, than the many legitimate scientific examinations that were performed surrounding this which make far more extraordinary claims should also be spurious, these include -

New York Forensic Pathologist and Cardiologist Dr Frederick Zugibe , San Francisco Forensic Pathologist Dr Robert Lawrence ,Dr Thomas Loy, (University of Queensland Australia}, Histopathologist Dr Richard Haskell , (Sydney Australia), Dr John Walker (Sydney University), Forensic pathologist Dr Peter Ellis (Sydney University) , Forensic Pathologist Professor Angelo Fiori ( Department Legal Medicine, Gemelli Hospital Rome ), and Professor Sudhir Sinha ( Gentest, USA), Dr Susanne Hummel .(University of Gottingen .Germany), Professor Odoardo Linoli ( Sienna Italy).

You are now choosing to accept the hearsay claims of people who have a financial stake in the story.

At the moment I believe there is only 1 hearsay claim which is regarding Dr Castanon’s credentials. I am certainly interested to see how Mike and Ron will proceed given this information (namely lack thereof).

Let me end by saying there is a difference between being cynical and being skeptical. Skepticism is the chastity of the intellect. It is unwise to simply swallow the claims of people around you…particularly claims by people who stand to benefit financially from those claims.

True. However I believe there have been many far more extraordinary claims made by these people that have nothing to do with the spurious nature of Dr Castanon’s credentials.

Please continue to next post -

 

[josh987654321]

Do a google search on Uri Geller. He can bend spoons and move compass needles right in front of your face. If he claimed the blessed Mary gave him the power to do this, would you automatically assume his “powers” were a miracle? Do a wikipedia search on Travis Walton, the American logger who claimed he was abducted by aliens. Five of his co-workers claimed they saw it happen. Should we believe this too? If not, why are we granting special dispensation to the hearsay claims of Ron and Mike?

Namely the writings and the reputation of Mike Willesee.

Lets take for arguments sake that your conclusion is correct and that the whole thing is a fraud, If it is, I believe if we dig a little at the surface of these other claims, than the truth should become apparent at once, but I don’t believe this is the case, why is it only Dr Castanon’s credentials? the lack of evidence toward his credentials is certainly alarming indeed, but I don’t believe it’s enough to write this off.

Sincerely - Steve

Thank you Steve.

God Bless you

Thank you for reading
Josh

 

[Sgroh]

Well, I certainly tried .

My position is that it seems likely that a lawyer and television producer made money off a story of a woman pretending to receive the stigmata. This opinion is based on the fact that the one and only scientific expert they chose to have in the room is unwilling to even state where he earned his degree. Ron has repeatedly suggested that this doctor is a renowned scientist…yet, he seems to be the very opposite of renowned. In fact, in terms of what I uncovered after months of investigating his alleged scientific credentials, the term “obscure” seems almost kind.

Your position, as I understand it, is that a lawyer and a savvy television producer simply did no homework at all before hiring the one scientific expert they chose to vouch for this miraculous event. Then they all watched together as God sent a message to the world by making superficial scratch marks on the palms of a Bolivian woman. This seems the more likely scenario to you.

Am I understanding this correctly?

 

[JohnJones]

Thank you Josh for reposting the link to Ron’s letter. Don’t know how I missed it.

Josh, I read your response to Steve carefully and I agree and have this perspective to add:

In all fairness I can understand Ron’s oversight in this matter with Castanon’s credentials.
1/ Castanon was investigating these events before Ron
2/ Castanon showed knowledge consistent with a high level of expertise in science
3/ Castanon was entrusted by the bishop to take samples of the bleeding host for testing
There was no red flag at the time so Ron had no reason to doubt his credentials. Of course we all agree when Castanon is used as a witness his credentials should be verified.

However I forgive Ron for his error and will now buy his material due to these words in his letter “…the case for the authenticity of the Stigmata of Katya Rivas is clearly made out without Mr.Castanon . In my book Reason to Believe in the Chapter on the Stigmata of Katya Rivas there is not even any mention of Mr Castanon.”

I encourage people to look for any other issues. For example if Mike Willesee dons a toupee and starts talking like Benny Hin, then puts on big shows I’ll become suspicious. As long as they run a non-profit organization I am satisfied. I also don’t see this as a great way for Mike to make money. Many of his fans expect him to debunk this type of event rather than end up supporting it.

Some details in the Rivas case I found rather convincing. For example they tested Rivas’s blood and there seemed to be some expectation it might not be hers but it was. Also the rose pedal images could be reproduced with some expertise and could not be certified as unexplainable. I got the impression of impartiality rather than one out to prove we have a miracle here.

I will continue to go “wherever the evidence leads me” and I appreciate others impartiality.

Again I encourage all to read Ms. Rivas’s freely available writings. It is a beautifully personal account of Jesus Christ’s perspective on his suffering as it relates to the lives of modern man and woman. loveandmercy.org/english-books/

Kind regards to all,

John

 

[Sgroh]

José H. Prado Flores is a catholic lay evangelist who has authored 42 books and, in 1980, he founded the St Andrew’s School of Evangelization which includes approx. 2,000 schools in 82 countries. This devout man has openly stated that Katya Rivas plagiarized writings directly from his book Formacion de pedicadores (Training preachers). Who is more likely to be untruthful between these two figures - The well established college educated professional and respected Mexican author who has nothing to gain from this claim, or the thrice divorced Bolivian woman who sells copies of the writings in question?

John mentioned that “Castanon showed knowledge consistent with a high level of expertise in science.” Yes, and Matlock shows a high level of expertise in law…but he is no lawyer.

Gentlemen, I am sincerely wanting to be respectful here…but this unwavering defense of Mr. Castanon and, by extension, Ron and Mike is simply not a reasonable response to the facts at hand. It is beyond far-fetched to suggest that these intelligent men were unaware of the problems with Mr. Castanon’s alleged credentials. Let me repeat one last time…of his many many claims…there is not a single one relating to his standing in the scientific community that can be established. ZERO. I have a 14 page letter from the “Doctor” himself and I can tell you in no uncertain terms that the style and substance of his response to my questions is not at all what you would expect from a professional academic. In fact, it borders on raving nonsense. I would be happy to pass it along to anyone who wants to read it. I have spent a great deal of effort trying to share these findings with Catholic parishioners in an effort to warn them about these unmistakable credibility problems…but I see that it is extremely difficult to disabuse people of a belief in something that they deeply want to be true. I can sympathize with that desire…but it does not make the belief reasonable.

Respectfully - Steve