Malaclypse the Younger

leonarde

A careful examination of this thread shows no such link. If you cannot accurately represent facts that are so easily verified, we have evidence to distrust your every representation of fact. False in part, false in whole.

Since I can use a search engine, I will myself link to some eyewitness observations.

Let us first examine <a href="http://www.fatima.org/miracle.html" target="_blank">An Eyewitness Account by Dr. José Maria de Almeida Garrett</a>:

I could see the sun, like a very clear disc, with its sharp edge, which gleamed without hurting the sight. It could not be confused with the sun seen through a fog (there was no fog at that moment), for it was neither veiled nor dim. {emphasis added}

Note that the highlighted statement is not testimony, it is a conclusion. It also appears to contradict the actual testimony that preceeds it: the obvious conclusion from the observation that the sun did not hurt the eyes was that it was dimmer than usual. Testimony is only authoritative as to what the witness saw, not his conclusions about what he saw.

[During this time], the sun's disc did not remain immobile, it had a giddy motion, [but] not like the twinking of a star in all its brilliance for it spun round upon itself in a mad whirl.

This observation is consistent with a visual hallucination caused by overloading the retina and the cognitive visual processing system with a too-bright object. I have observed this phenomenon personally merely staring at a bright light bulb.

During the solar phenomenon, which I have just described, there were also changes of color in the atmosphere. Looking at the sun, I noticed that everything was becoming darkened. I looked first at the nearest objects and then extended my glance further afield as far as the horizon. I saw everything had assumed an amethyst color. Objects around me, the sky and the atmosphere, were of the same color. Everything both near and far had changed, taking ont he color of old yellow damask. People looked as if they were suffering from jaundice and I recall a sensation of amusement at seeing them look so ugly and unattractive. My own hand was the same color.

Again, this phenomenon is explained totally by retinal color fatigue, and again, I have observed this phenomenon personally from staring at a bright light bulb.

Then, suddenly, one heard a clamor, a cry of anguish breaking from all the people. The sun, whirling wildly, seemed all at once to loosen itself from the firmament and, blood red, advance threateningly upon the earth as if to crush us with its huge and fiery weight. The sensation during those moments was truly terrible.

"All the phenomena which I have described were observed by me in a calm and serene state of mind without any emotional disturbance. {emphasis added}

It appears that this witness cannot even describe his own emotional state with consistency. The reporting of "truly terrible sensations" contradicts the claim that these phenomena were observed without emotional disturbance.

This testimony is highlighted by a site favorable to a miraculous interpretation of Fatima, so it is reasonable to assume that this is the best testimony available. Even if some other accounts are substantively similar, there is simply nothing in this testimony to rule out a visual hallucination caused by overloading the mechanical visual apparatus of our eyes and brain with a very bright stimulus. Since people have substantially similar visual apparatus, it is unsurprising that they would have had substantially similar hallucinations.

If indeed the sun had actually moved at this time, it would have been observed to have done so by everyone in Western Europe (the alleged phenomenon occurred at ~1:30 PM, so the sun would have been visible). The argument from silence is compelling here: it is surprising that no one would have commented on the sun behaving so abnormally, and it is unsurprising that no one would have commented specifically that the sun behaved entirely normally.

Additionally, a careful Internet search (mostly of sites favorable to a miraculous or paranormal interpretations) reveals only three eyewitness accounts, only two of which are actually attributed: Dr. Garret (noted above) and Dr. Formigao, a professor at the seminary at Santarem (<a href="http://www.mt.net/~watcher/october13maryfatima.html" target="_blank">Mary Apparitions on the 13th of the Month</a>).

The unattributed (read hearsay) report:

For example, in 1960 the Rev. Joaquim Lourenco, a canon lawyer of the diocese of Leira, described what he saw as a boy in the town of Alburitel, some nine miles from Fatima:

"I feel incapable of describing what I saw, I looked fixedly at the sun, which seemed pale and did not hurt my eyes [maybe it did not look like the sun because it wasn't the sun... it was a UFO - ww]. Looking like a ball of snow, revolving on itself, it suddenly seemed to come down in a zig-zag, menacing the earth. Terrified, I ran and hid myself among the people, who were weeping and expecting the end of the world at any moment."

Note that this report occurs forty-three years after the event.

Three reports (with one obviously unattributed hearsay) do not at all make the case that 70,000 or more saw something.

The historical record is simply insufficient to conclude anything but a trivial visual hallucination caused by simple sensory overload.

[ March 31, 2002: Message edited by: Malaclypse the Younger ]</p>

lpetrich

I agree that leonarde seems like he's pressing &lt;enter&gt; when he nears the right margin of the text box; I've had enough experience with text editors to keep on typing

And when I want really fancy editing, I copy the text out into some text editor. My favorite with MacOS X is Apple's built-in one, TextEdit.

leonarde

Malaclypse,
You are perfectly correct: I'm an active participant on three threads currently and both
this one and the one entitled "Is all these miracle true?" have touched on the Fatima apparition. I got what link was on what thread confused. The original post from that other thread by Answerer gave three links, the first of which gave, among other things, the following eyewitness testimony:
In these instances persons who were NOT already
looking at the sun observed, at distances of 25
and 11 miles away, the same optical phenomenon as
the persons at Fatima itself.....

[ March 31, 2002: Message edited by: leonarde ]</p>

leonarde

The previous text was part of the following link:
<a href="http://www.ewtn.com/fatima/apparitions/October.htm" target="_blank">www.ewtn.com/fatima/apparitions/October.htm</a>

Viti

Just FYI. It seems the cloak itself was repainted ("restored") in 1929, so any pictures taken since then are of the new layers of paint.

<a href="http://www.anomalies-unlimited.com/Guadalupe.html" target="_blank">http://www.anomalies-unlimited.com/Guadalupe.html</a>

Also, here is an interesting paper outlining the story as an intentionally constructed myth

<a href="http://www.mexika.org/Lavirgin.html" target="_blank">http://www.mexika.org/Lavirgin.html</a>

[ March 31, 2002: Message edited by: LadyShea ]</p>

Malaclypse the Younger

It is important to note that there are several problems with this site.

It is not clear precisely when these stories were actually collected; there have been reports of stories collected almost a half-century after the fact. Additionally, the site mixes second-hand testimony (hearsay) with apparently eyewitness testimony.

The reports of various witness reveal some puzzling inconsistencies. For instance, some witnesses (Ti Marto, Maria de Capelinha, Dr. Almeida Garrett, PhD, Senhor Alfredo da Silva Santos) report that the sun appeared to crash towards the earth, whereas others (Dr. Domingos Coelho, Fr. Manuel Pereira da Silva) fail to mention this astonishing observation.

The witnesses appear to draw the conclusion that the sun was not at all obscured by clouds. However, this conclusion is highly suspect, as the day was known to be drizzly and overcast. It is entirely possible that the sun was still obscured somewhat by haze, which was not readily apparent given the contrast of actual clouds and the brightness of even a partially obscured sun.

Clearly these people were expecting to see a miracle; and some degree of "mass hysteria", mutual reinforcement and memory formation by recounting, cannot be ruled out.

The experiences of those not part of the cloud are unpersuasive: This site mentions only two: Alfonso Lopes Vieira, who's detailed observations are completely elided, and Fr. Ignacio Lorenco, was nine years old (and thus not a reliable witness) and was also part of a smaller crowd, and also looking directly at the sun expecting a miracle.

Even a favorable examination of this evidence reveals a situation easily explainable by mass hysteria and perceptual hallucination.

[ March 31, 2002: Message edited by: Malaclypse the Younger ]</p>

leonarde

I disagree that a nine year old is not a reliable
witness: if it were a murder trial, there might
be an attempt to avoid having a child testify but
if he were the only eyewitness his testimony would
and should be taken at face value.
What is clear from the at-a-distance witnesses
cited is: even those NOT staring expectantly at
the sun saw something extraordinary that day; adults who worked at the village school attended
by Ignacio Lorenzo ALSO saw something extraordinary in the sky that day. Is there any
other instance in recorded history in which SIMULTANEOUS "mass hysteria" blankets an area with
radius of up to 25 miles?
The serious investigator is encouraged to dig deeper....

Malaclypse the Younger

leonarde

If you want to base your religious beliefs on the testimony of 9 year-old boys surrounded by people suggesting testimony, go right ahead pilgrim.

Remind me not to have you defend me if I get in trouble. A nine-year-old's testimony might have evidential value under some circumstance, but there are no circumstances where it would be taken at face value.

[side note: I love how some of these christians are suddendly legal evidence experts after watching Pat Robertson's guest appearance on Law & Order]

Witness. Singular. Every time you misrepresent the facts you reduce your already abysmal credibility. There is only one at-a-distance witness testimony represented.

And it is clear from that testimony that the witness was:

• young and impressionable
• surrounded by people expecting a miracle
• directed to look at the sun

So far you have offered no testimony to this effect. You are making up facts. Your credibility is further reduced to the point that it is difficult to decide if you're intentionally lying or simply too stupid to understand the difference between testimony and hearsay.

You have not established that this mass hysteria, extended past a half-dozen people who were there, much "blanketed" a wide area.

Misrepresenting facts, assuming facts not in evidence, and drawing conclusions unwarranted by these facts. We can safely conclude you are not an "investigator" of any kind, serious or frivolous; you are merely credulous and easily conned. Maybe you'd be interested in a slightly used bridge?

[ March 31, 2002: Message edited by: Malaclypse the Younger ]

[ March 31, 2002: Message edited by: Malaclypse the Younger ]</p>

gerald_the_okapi

All

Just a quick definition from the Skeptics Dictionary - (www.skepdic.com)

"pareidolia - Pareidolia is a type of illusion or misperception involving a vague or obscure stimulus being perceived as something clear and distinct. For example, in the discolorations of a burnt tortilla one sees the face of Jesus Christ. Or one sees the image of Mother Theresa in a cinnamon bun or the face of a man in the moon."

Address of the full article is :

<a href="http://www.skepdic.com/pareidol.html" target="_blank">http://www.skepdic.com/pareidol.html</a>


Gerald

palom

Did any obervatory in the world confirm the "dancing of the sun" at Fatima???