Grizalltheway wrote:JoltinJoe wrote:
Sure.
But let's go back to the incident at Fatima. Three small children say the Virgin May appears to them and indicates something miraculous will occur at the site of her appearances on October 13, 1917, at noon. Some 70,000 people, including many skeptics, assemble and witness a spectacular solar event. The incident is documented by journalists in newspapers of the day.
And your rational explanation, which excludes a religious explanation, is?
From the article you cited on this:
The children reported that the Lady had promised them that she would on 13 October reveal her identity to them[11] and provide a miracle "so that all may believe
Pretty credible stuff there. I could
totally see why you view that as more credible than the scientist's take on it:
Professor Auguste Meessen of the Institute of Physics, Catholic University of Leuven, has stated sun miracles cannot be taken at face value and that the reported observations were optical effects caused by prolonged staring at the sun. Meessen contends that retinal after-images produced after brief periods of sun gazing are a likely cause of the observed dancing effects. Similarly Meessen states that the color changes witnessed were most likely caused by the bleaching of photosensitive retinal cells.[24] Meessen observes that Sun Miracles have been witnessed in many places where religiously charged pilgrims have been encouraged to stare at the sun. He cites the apparitions at Heroldsbach, Germany (1949) as an example, where similar observations as at Fatima were witnessed by more than 10,000 people.[24] Meessen also cites a British Journal of Ophthalmology article that discusses some modern examples of Sun Miracles.
And you still haven't explained how this bit doesn't completely violate the laws of physics.
The sun was then reported to have careened towards the earth in a zigzag pattern.
We've already covered this. That explanation from Meessen is absurd. 70,000 people simultaneously suffered retinal distortion -- even though no one was actually staring at the sun prior the event. Numerous accounts attest that the sky was completely gray and overcast before the sun broke through.
His own peers say his claim is irrational, because this simply cannot account for the tens of thousands of similar accounts of what happened. Retinal delusion on the scale claimed here -- tens of thousands of people -- is an explanation lacking in credibility. But I realize you either have to go with this flimsy explanation, or begin to admit that the accounts of 70,000 simply cannot be ignored.
For a guy who cites Occam's Razor so often, the theory of mass delusion, with all the assumptions you must make to arrive at it, should be less preferable than simply accepting that tens of thousands of people must have actually seen what they claim to have seen.
