This and this are not amorphous blobs of light. You don’t really have a point here; you are just being dismissive.
In 1977, at Trinity Episcopal Church in Shamokin, PA, there was supposedly a vision of Jesus on the altar cloth. My mother and aunt packed the 6-year-old me up and drove to Shamokin from Altoona to see this altar cloth. Both my aunt and my mother were whispering to each other as they knelt at the altar rail about seeing his face and how miraculous it was.
I saw nothing. I couldn’t make the shadows on the altar cloth look like ANYTHING coherent…definitely not Jesus. I couldn’t figure out why everyone got to see Jesus but me. I realized many years later that it was because everyone else was seeing what they wanted to see, and I was too young to really have that “ability”…I was pretty much stuck in reality. I hadn’t developed the basic human ability to twist my perception of reality in a preferred direction.
While I did eventually gain that human ability, it never really turned in the direction of religion. I think that visit to the “miracle altar cloth” innoculated me against falling completely into religious belief. I went through the Catholic motions until I was out of my parents’ house, then broke away from that, having had doubts throughout my childhood and adolescence. I dabbled in a lot of different religions, from Buddhism to Wicca to some form of personal Christianity, but I’m pretty much what Bill Maher calls “apatheistic”…I don’t know if there’s a god…and I don’t really care. Much like Pierre-Simon Laplace, I have no need of that hypothesis.
Those are horrible photographs. They look like photographic negatives. I would seriously have to see better photos than that if you’re going to try to convince me they’re genuine and not home darkroom tricks.
I have no idea what vacuum tube technology is supposed to do with all this. Casting unfounded aspersions on the witnesses is not an argument. If you’re going to make accusations like that, you need to back them up with specific facts.
Where is the reference to an independent study of those pictures to eliminate the possibility of fraud?
They are, nevertheless, sufficient for the purpose. If you’re going to dismiss them as evidence, you need to cite specific evidence of fraud.
What evidence do you have of fraud? Remember, there were two investigations, one by the Coptic church and the other by the Cairo police. If you’re going to insist these photos were fraudulent, you need to cite specific facts about them.
Um…no. You are the one entering extraordinary explanations into the narrative. It is incumbent upon YOU to defend your evidence. I am not convinced that this apparition even actually happened. Your photographic evidence is far from sufficient to convince me. Both of those photos look like bad film development tricks.
Nitpick: Am I the only one who thinks the word “apparition” is more suitable for a ghost story than a religious-miracle story?
Sorry, but by definition they are fake until the Blessed Virgin Mary herself comes down with Jesus in tow to testify to their authenticity. And even then how are we supposed to prove they are who they say they are?
That’s the problem with supernatural phenomena. They are impossible; otherwise they wouldn’t be supernatural, would they? And the Catholic Church assumes that they are fake, too, until it is proven (to their satisfaction) otherwise. The canonization process even has people whose job it is to try to poke holes in claims of a potential saint’s character and miracles.
Um … no. There are only two real explanations here. Either something very strange happened at Zeitoun, or somebody pulled off a fantasticly successful hoax, and such a hoax would have involved a technology not known to exist at that time. If you’re going to insist on the second explanation, you’re going to have to provide definite facts to support it.
Apparition is actually the word the Catholic Church officially uses for these visions. It’s a usage with a VERY long history. Almost all of the various versions of the Virgin Mary (forgive the alliteration) in Catholic doctrine are apparitions of same…Church-investigated and -approved sightings of visions of the Blessed Mother. The phrase “Our Lady of…” has a fairly long list of endings.
The Church has accepted this apparition as legitimate. Not being either a Catholic or a Christian, I don’t quite know what to make of it myself. And that first paragraph makes no sense at all.
Still sounds way spooky.
Actually, those aren’t the only two explanations. You omitted the idea that all of those people may have actually seen what they said they saw (through mass hallucination or actual divine power or whatever), but that the photographs HAVE been altered to show what the person who took them thought they saw. The existence of the photographs does not necessarily have anything to do with the actual apparition. Those are so laughably amateurish (it looks like they actually overexposed a BVM statue and superimposed it over the dome) that I can’t in good conscience say they’re genuine.
If you’re going to present them as evidence, you need to prove their provenence and authenticity.
They still look like blobs to me anyway.
Vacuum tubes have nothing to do with it. That was the point of my joke.
Oh so I need to prove that the whackjob believers are incorrect? Okay. My evidence for that is the lack of credible photographic evidence. You’re evidence is darkroom trickery done poorly or photos of streetlights.
No they aren’t. You can hand me a used clump of toilet paper and say it proves you own my house. But your evidence stinks.
Shit, if the Coptic church was involved then I don’t know what to think. :rolleyes:
False dichotomy. There is a third explanation. People who really wanted to believe took anything confusing they saw as the virgin.
Hell, this was the first time I’ve ever heard anyone say anything nice about the professionalism of the Cairo PD.
Arrgh! God got me, he made me use the wrong your!
*
I believe!*
I believe!