Fatima: Did 70,000 people witness a miracle?

[JaredJames]

What do you mean by miracle? To me, it can mean one of two things:

(1) A true miracle: Something positive that happens which completely defies the laws of physics; a scientific impossibility.

(2) A lesser miracle: An extremely unlikely positive occurence, like getting all six numbers right in the Power Ball lottery.

Number 1 should be defies scientific explanation. In the sense that we can't explain it, not that it's impossible under science altogether - only our current understanding.

Not so sure I'd call number 2 a miracle, winning the lottery is certainly within the odds that it would happen and really not that extraordinary.

According the great psychologist Carl Jung, UFO's occur in three ways: in dreams, in paintings and as rumors. This is a case where UFO's occur as a rumor.

Please see post number 66 regarding UFO's. It would appear Carl Jung isn't so great as they most certainly do occur in everyday life - not just dreams, paintings and rumours. The weird black dot I saw floating across the sky earlier was a UFO (turned out to be a dude on a parachute).

 

[GODISMYSHADOW]

Number 1 should be defies scientific explanation. In the sense that we can't explain it, not that it's impossible under science altogether - only our current understanding.

Do you mean there are no true miracles but only the unexplained?

 

[JaredJames]

Do you mean there are no true miracles but only the unexplained?

Correct.

Just because we can't explain it, doesn't mean it can't be explained.

There is exactly zero evidence for the supernatural, so why would I entertain it?

There are a great many things we don't understand. That doesn't make them supernatural.

 

[nismaratwork]

Do you mean there are no true miracles but only the unexplained?

OK, let me just hold you up here: just read the guidelines for the forum, please. If you're expecting people to do anything except challenge you to prove something as extreme as miracles, you need proof beyond anything seen so far.

Beyond that, jarednjames said it all.

 

[SpeedOfDark]

This may not be the best source but it tells the basic story.


http://fatima.ie/

If in fact some large percentage of the 70,000 actual observed what they say, and if the reports are fairly consistent, then there is only one explanation that would be consistent with science and the reported facts: What they saw was not the sun.

Russ, thanks for mentioning it. It is ironic that as an ex-Catholic, it never occurred to me to start a thread about this.

This is something to be skeptical about, let me start off by saying I think it's not true because well let's be honest it's probably not but I can't say for sure that it's not because the evidence it presents is to much for me to wave away.



Also, I would like to state that it's definately NOT a fact that they saw what they say they saw.

I had never saw this before and upon doing some reading, the conclusion is pretty obvious

http://sacredsites.com/europe/portugal/fatima.html

Apparently the spirits were only visible to the three children at first, then people all showed up. It says some of them thought they saw the sun dancing, many of them said they felt the ground shaking beneath their feet.

Although the sun was behind the clouds they still saw this( they may have or may have not ) but it wasn't actually their

It's not likely that all their stories don't correlate and as we all know journalism is too often and too few times accurate.

Read Lord of the Flies the part where they kill Simon, that's kinda how people lose there minds for a few seconds. Although, I suspect some of the people were just downright lying which I don't doubt because religion is involved.

 

[Phrak]

I have never been to a mass hysteria. Has anyone here attended one, and if so, can you describe it?

 

[nismaratwork]

I have never been to a mass hysteria. Has anyone here attended one, and if so, can you describe it?

Ever been to a rowdy concert?... the mindset is there, just not the right circumstances. If you've ever been near a riot or mob, or the point at which a group of individuals turns into a mob, again... very similar.

Beyond that, having never been there afaik (hope not!), the above would be my best guess based on how the nucleus accumbens (NAcc) works, and people.

 

[JaredJames]

Well, as nismar said, ever been to a concert (perhaps something with multiple artists)?

People may complain about one artists music, but during a concert may just get 'taken' with the atmosphere of the crowd and will tell you they enjoyed the whole night including that artist - even though they hate their music.

I know it's not quite the same, but it's the effect crowds can have on people. People get carried away.

 

[Evo]

The Salem witch trials are a famous case of people pretending to experience something and others starting to see and hear things.

Mass hysteria created from the famous reading of "War of the Worlds".

Here are some cases of mass hysteria. http://listverse.com/2009/03/16/top-10-bizarre-cases-of-mass-hysteria/

 

[nismaratwork]

I agree with Jared and Evo... the difference between a crowd in that's acting in concert, and a mob is just a spark. There is a very similar thing which occurs in mass hysteria, which actually makes a great deal of sense.

If everyone else around you suddenly cues into food, or something dangerous it's an obvious benefit to have a part of your brain that 'listens' to that, and puts you a little more in lockstep. Unfortunately, everyone has a wealth of emotion, and that also seems to be something that the NAcc really rides.

In a very real way, although for obvious reasons it's tough to stick a mob in an MRI, it's becoming clear that mass-anything is just part of the human condition. We're BUILT to not make the same dumb mistakes we see our comrades make, but the downside is what people often term "group think". This is a much more literal version, in which it seems the mood... the 'tenor' if you will, of a group spreads ahead of verbal communication.

I'd add, you don't need EVERYONE to really be "hysterical"... some will lie to be part of it (who wants to be the one who DIDN'T see the miracle? lol), and MOST are simply not interviewed. 70,000 people... I haven't seen anything like evidence that they ALL saw this, but rather descriptions from a handful.

 

[Phrak]

Anyone have any personal evidence of mass hallucination?

I avoid crowds so the closest I've come is watching John Edward con an audience on television if that counts as mass hallucination.

 

[nismaratwork]

Anyone have any personal evidence of mass hallucination?

I avoid crowds so the closest I've come is watching John Edward con an audience on television if that counts as mass hallucination.

From what has been released about the length of those tapings, I don't think you ever have that effect. I was in a riot in Cyprus once, or rather, I was walking briskly away from once that began to form... there is a visceral effect when you're near a mob or mass. It didn't scramble my noggin and have me chanting slogans, but there's no other way to say it; you FEEL the crowd, you feel it "go bad".

It's probably a combination of sound, and body language, both obvious and subliminally (not in the vodoun sense), and the reaction of our NAcc. That's being COMPLETELY uninvolved and with no stake in what was going on... just a bystander.

Still, that's not mass hysteria even if there are similar mechanisms... I would love to hear an objective experience where it's observed in "nature" rather than induced in the lab.

 

[SpeedOfDark]

Anyone have any personal evidence of mass hallucination?

I avoid crowds so the closest I've come is watching John Edward con an audience on television if that counts as mass hallucination.

If everyone reported the exact same thing, and the sun was clearly visible and people didn't feel earthquakes that never happened. I would agree because it's highly unlikely that a story where everyone sees the EXACT same thing didn't happen would be false. Of course that wouldn't happen though because this is pure nonsense, of fairy tales and hoaxes. I can't believe we're getting caught up on debunking whether a few religious junkies lied or didn't lie about an event when the answer is so very obvious

 

[JaredJames]

I can't believe we're getting caught up on debunking whether a few religious junkies lied or didn't lie about an event when the answer is so very obvious

Is there a need for this attitude? It's an interesting topic to read through and I personally have learned a few things skimming through it. I don't see a problem with us discussing it.

 

[SpeedOfDark]

Is there a need for this attitude? It's an interesting topic to read through and I personally have learned a few things skimming through it. I don't see a problem with us discussing it.

There's no probablem with discussing it, but it just seems like things that real science just doesn't agree with is always pawned off and acted like it is agree'd with or doesn't disagree with science when the fact is it does.There's so many really good topics to be skeptical about that scientists and people really aren't sure about. Instead though we always seem to get caught up debating ridiculous claims and very rarely if ever does anyone post proof to back up these claims. If we just discuss things and attempt to be skeptical and debunk them but we never say just say " There's no evidence for this and none that is overwhelming or significant and it just can't be proven therefore it is false" then we're not being true skeptics.Look at the list Ivan posted for credible anomalies most of those things are highly accepted fact in the scientific community or are an underlying mystery which has a good deal of evidence( to much to be dismissed on it's side.) Now look at the stuff we're debating.

 

[JaredJames]

We've already proclaimed this as false. We do this quite a lot. In fact, when it comes to this particular sub-forum we do it in almost every thread made.

 

[nismaratwork]

We've already proclaimed this as false. We does this quite a lot. In fact, when it comes to this particular sub-forum we do it in almost every thread made.

So true... usually it comes down to people railing at us all for being unbelievers, or in the more common case, pure cynics. This is... kind of refreshing. :tongue:

SpeedOfDark: Do I think you're right? Yeah. Do I think you're right because of how you've approached this, or the ability to explain in depth WHY you're right... NO.

You need to be able to do more than shout back at people, and the reality is that skepticism and Skepticism cannot be Cynicism or it becomes another religion. Let me put this challenge to you: a quick run through memory lane provides me with a poll that (I think) had some disturbing majority of the US population believing in angels. I don't believe in angels, and I'm guessing that you don't either, so we don't need to convince one another.

We also don't need to really get into it with people who BELIEVE in angels, but don't believe in "angels in everyday life". That goes back to their personal religious beliefs, and there is little profit in discussing those unless you want to learn, not teach. So, since the whole point of this is to address extraordinary claims and meet them with consummate evidence, you could just argue that there's no evidence.

Now, you've just built PAGES of retreading old ground into your argument, and it's still not a discussion. Remember, this isn't about convincing anyone, but about exploring the topics that for the general public range from a given that they do or don't exist, and in what forms. Might it be better to start by asking, "What did the angel you saw looked like? When did you see it? Where? Under what circumstances?" There's never a reason, unless it's crackpots intentionally trying to slip under the radar (we saw that here, and is it there anymore? Nope) to flat-out slap someone in the face so to speak. Questions and answers are all someone NEEDS to interrogate, to question, and to explore.

It's also completely OK to not take this on yourself... I get into trouble most often when I stick with a losing fight of mine, or a losing fight of someone else for too long. That always become terse, bitter, and sometimes rude or angry. Where you have insight and experience, this is a GREAT place to share it, but if you're just chiming in... why? I'd trust the mentors here to be hostile to nothing as much as crackpots and people trying to manipulate this forum and especially sub-forum to make a case, not explore it.

 

[JaredJames]

Just to add to nismar, it's often better to ask questions and 'interrogate' people than to simply say "load of rubbish".

To say "there's no evidence you're wrong", may be a strong point but for those who believe it doesn't work - they think they have evidence.

So, when you question and discuss, you gain a better insight and more often than not you can pick holes in their stories / arguments without much effort. And as per a few previous posts here, the so called 'miracle' can be attributed to no more than ordinary medical complaints.

By taking the time to do this, you build a much stronger ground to refute the claims.

 

[anastasia2657]

Seventy thousand people may have been there (frankly, I do not know who was counting), but seventy thousand people did not see something, or even when they saw something, they did not see the same thing. Firstly, by the time they compiled the evidence, many witnesses were lost, according to the members of the canonical committee who investigated the matter, so we do not know how many witnesses there were in fact who signed affidavits or statements. Secondly, if you read the accounts of the witnesses, you will see all kinds of troublesome things in the quotations. For example, one person was recorded to have said to the person standing next to him, "Did you see anything?" Now, this kind of question should not be made to a person standing next to you, if you have seen something that was plainly there to be seen by everyone, and if the sun is coming down from the sky, that is something that everyone would see, so the question is hardly the question that would be asked of the person standing next to you. Secondly, there are many people who did not see anything. But we do not know how many, do we? As a matter of fact, there were photographers there with their cameras, but not one picture of this phenomena was taken. But if you look at the photo of the people who were supposed to be seeing something, you will not see startled looks or people throwing themselves down on the ground. As a matter of fact, you will see countenances that do not appear to be seeing much of anything, just people calming looking up, sometimes with their hands acting as a shield above their eyes. People who did see something, give accounts that are various. In other words, people who saw something were seeing different things. But if a true miracle is occurring then it should be there for everyone to see. The sun was supposed to act queerly on the "serra" in this area of Portugal all the time.. People were staring up into a very bright sun that had come out from behind clouds and shone very brightly. This would have affected people's eyes. Have you ever looked directly into the sun. My mother always warned me not to. But these people were staring straight up into the sun.

 

[FlexGunship]

Seventy thousand people [...] were staring straight up into the sun.

Good post, welcome to the forums, what's your favorite fish, etc...

I edited your post in my quote to provide a nice finishing statement for this thread:

1. They were gullible enough to stare at the sun (expecting something amaing to happen), and
2. anything they saw is suspect because of severe retinal damage.

 

[MarcoD]

Are there any atmospheric conditions that could account for a distortion of the way the sun appeared?

Of course, layers of air of different density can work as 'mirrors' when they meet. You see that on asfalt in the summer, and sometimes fata morgana's have been seen in deserts. So, yeah, if there were a number of those mirrors high in the sky, the sun could be seen to dance. (Actually, if I read it correctly, the fact that the sky suddenly went clear would support that theory since that probably would imply a sudden gust of hot air, so hot and cold air would meet high in the sky. If that happens at rather clean cut borders, you end up with mirrors. After that, it's just a question of angle and perception.)

It's an improbable, but not an impossible event.

 

[Larkus]

I recommend a look at this paper:

Auguste Meessen 'Apparitions and Miracles of the Sun' International Forum in Porto "Science, Religion and Conscience" October 23–25, 2003 ISSN: 1645-6564

http://www.meessen.net/AMeessen/MirSun.pdf

"This extensive study of "miracles of the sun" leads to the conclusion that they can be explained by means of natural physiological processes, while "apparitions" are related to altered states of conscience."

 

[Dotini]

I recommend a look at this paper:

Auguste Meessen 'Apparitions and Miracles of the Sun' International Forum in Porto "Science, Religion and Conscience" October 23–25, 2003 ISSN: 1645-6564

http://www.meessen.net/AMeessen/MirSun.pdf

"This extensive study of "miracles of the sun" leads to the conclusion that they can be explained by means of natural physiological processes, while "apparitions" are related to altered states of conscience."

Excellent contribution to the thread! I would add that the "miracle of the sun" and apparitions may both be explained by uncommon meteorological events involving unusually intense electromagnetic effects upon human physiology and consciousness. The great Ivan Seeking hinted as much on the very first page of this thread.

There is a school of thought that natural phenomena such as ball lightning may be able to affect observers psychologically. This would suggest the possibility of distorted perceptions of real events.

Can the same sorts of processes explain the UFO incidents of Iran '76 and Rendlesham Forest '80? I think so.

Respectfully submitted,
Steve

 

[anastasia2657]

I see that this discussion is old, but thought I would add my knowledge about this matter to it. I've done research into the matter of Fatima and one of the persons who sat on the committee scrutinizing the apparition for the church said that they "lost many witnesses." Very few witness statements were given to the committee. Further, if you read the witness accounts that are there, you will find that people saw different things, and many saw nothing at all. In one account, a witness asked the person standing right next to them, "Did you see anything?" This question comes from a person who we are told just saw the sun come down out of the sky at them. This question is a question of a person having a subjective experience, and of a person hoping that the person standing next to them had one too. It is not question from one who truly saw the sun come down out of the sky as if it were going to hit them all. A question like that would never be asked of the person standing next to them. Further, there were photographers at Fatima, but there is not one photo of this Miracle, even though all cameras were poised to take a photo of this promised miracle.. Further, the photos of the people looking up at the sky are of the countenance of people really not seeing anything very spectacular, and some are not looking at all. Lastly, one of the priest scrutinizers, who was from the area, made the comment that the sun acts strangely on the 'serra' in that part of the country. It was raining, and then drizzling, and the clouds parted and a brilliant Portugese sun came out from behind the clouds on a crowd of people in very hopeful anticipation. And the accounts of what they saw vary greatly, and as I said, many saw nothing at all.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I see that this discussion is old, but thought I would add my knowledge about this matter to it. I've done research into the matter of Fatima and one of the persons who sat on the committee scrutinizing the apparition for the church said that they "lost many witnesses." Very few witness statements were given to the committee. Further, if you read the witness accounts that are there, you will find that people saw different things, and many saw nothing at all. In one account, a witness asked the person standing right next to them, "Did you see anything?" This question comes from a person who we are told just saw the sun come down out of the sky at them. This question is a question of a person having a subjective experience, and of a person hoping that the person standing next to them had one too. It is not question from one who truly saw the sun come down out of the sky as if it were going to hit them all. A question like that would never be asked of the person standing next to them. Further, there were photographers at Fatima, but there is not one photo of this Miracle, even though all cameras were poised to take a photo of this promised miracle.. Further, the photos of the people looking up at the sky are of the countenance of people really not seeing anything very spectacular, and some are not looking at all. Lastly, one of the priest scrutinizers, who was from the area, made the comment that the sun acts strangely on the 'serra' in that part of the country. It was raining, and then drizzling, and the clouds parted and a brilliant Portugese sun came out from behind the clouds on a crowd of people in very hopeful anticipation. And the accounts of what they saw vary greatly, and as I said, many saw nothing at all.

Link?

Isn't it interesting that no one had asked for one?

 

[Lord_Sidious]

Did 70,000 people witness a miracle?

Nope

 

[anastasia2657]

Did 70,000 witness "the miracle". "Nope" is the right answer. 70,000 people were present, and the canonization committee said that many witnesses were lost. Most of the witness affidavits came from professors at the University where "Fr. Formigao", the head of the committee which scrutinized the apparition worked. It was said that they had a "plethora" of affidavits from "professional" people. But they said that many other witnesses were "lost." In reading the accounts of the witnesses who spoke informally on the subject, they saw different things, and some people saw nothing at all. What we know is that it was a cloudy rainy day and that it rained hard, and later drizzled, and later and suddenly the clouds parted and a bright Portugese son came out between the clouds. Fr. Formigao was quoted as saying in the past that the "sun acts strangely on the serra in those parts of Portugal". Most, if not virtually all the people who came were already "believers", i.e. were Catholics and who believed in the miracles of Christ, and who believed that God can perform miracles to this very day, should He choose to); that the comers were made to "anticipate" a miracle because of what Lucia told them about what she had previously seen, which must have been reported in the newspapers; that it was a rainy day, that the clouds parted suddenly and a bright Portugese sun came out from the clouds, a sun that "acts strangely on the serra in this part of the country"; that Sr. Lucia screamed to everyone to look at the sun when it came through the clouds; that people saw different things and many saw nothing at all and that in the aftermath, rather than gatherup the witnesses and take immediate steps to record their statements, waited before taking any statements, subjecting those witnesses to being influenced by newspaper reports that something did happen that day, etc. And finally, you have a Church, who did not follow their own rules, but rather, allowed Masses to be said at the site in the aftermath before the scrutiny was performed, and even went so far as to allow a solemn pontifical Mass to be said at the site with Vatican officials present, all giving this apparition even more credibility andlocking the Vatican into a position. So, in effect, what you have are vulnerable and suseptible people, coming in anticipation, already as believers and being fed by the authorities, both secular (newspaper reports) and ecclesiastic (Vatican officials) who are acting irresponsibly in their own actions following the incident.

 

[Same-same]

I'm noticing a number of factual errors

1:

andlocking the Vatican into a position

The Vatican isn't "locked into a position," as no Catholic is obligated to believe in an apparition like this.
http://www.catholic.com/quickquestions/are-any-apparitions-ever-considered-dogma



2:

Sr. Lucia screamed to everyone

"Sr. Lucia" would just be Lucia. She had not joined a religious order at the time. In fact, she would have been 9 or 10 years old.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lúcia_Santos

3:

you have a Church, who did not follow their own rules, but rather, allowed Masses to be said at the site in the aftermath before the scrutiny was performed, and even went so far as to allow a solemn pontifical Mass to be said at the site with Vatican officials present

Would you mind telling us which rules were broken? The town almost certainly had a church, so it naturally follows that masses would be celebrated at that town.
A "solemn pontifical mass" is just a certain form of mass said by a Bishop.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pontifical_High_Mass
Again, I see no rules broken.

being fed by the authorities

Highly suspect. Fatima was just another town in Portugal, and the Portugese government in 1917 was anti-Catholic. I can find concerns about anti-Catholicism as late as 1935, and that's after a regime change. http://archive.catholicherald.co.uk/article/22nd-november-1935/20/religion-in-portugal
Given that the mayor of Fatima is reported to have jailed the children for their message, it is doubtful that "Vatican officials" would endorse something before it happened, especially when it could result in an increase in persecution.

rather than gatherup the witnesses and take immediate steps to record their statements, waited before taking any statements, subjecting those witnesses to being influenced by newspaper reports that something did happen that day

I'm not sure if this can be confirmed or not, since you don't cite any sources. However, unless the reporter himself/herself saw something, said reporter would probably interview witnesses before printing a story. Interviews make better articles.

 

[anastasia2657]

The rules were broken in that no Masses should be said at an apparition site until the bishop approves the apparition following a scrutiny. The Catholic Church demands a scrutiny before an apparition is approved, and having Masses said at an apparition site is an implicit approval, given precipitously in that it was done before doing what they had a duty to do - which is to conduct a scrutiny. Further, in having Masses, they were influencing those people who were conducting the scrutiny, as well as the people. . That is what I mean when I say that in having Masses there, they were locking themselves into a position to approve the apparition when it may have been an undeserved approval, which it was.

Yes, little Lucia became Sr. Lucia when she grew up.

In being "fed by the authorities", I am speaking about Church authorities, not the secular authorities, but I will correct you and tell you that the mayor did not "jail" the children. That story is a ridiculous lie told by little Lucia, whose mother knew she was a "liar." The children were taken to the mayor's house where the children had lunch with the mayor's children. Lucia said that the children were put in jail with the criminals and that they danced with the criminals, and you tell me that you believe that story. You sound very gullible.

In regard to the newspapers, of course, they quoted those that saw something. But if you read the book Meet the Witnesses you will see that different people saw different things, and some people saw nothing at all. As a matter of fact, a picture says a thousand words, and if you look at the photo of the people looking up at the sky (which they were told to do by little Lucia), you will see no startled looks on anyone's face, or any kind of countenance that would suggest that the sun was spinning and ready to come down on their heads. Incidentally, there were several photographers there at the time, and there is no photo of the "miracle of the sun", albeit that the photographers were ready andpoised to take those pictures..

When I say that witnesses were lost, I am quoting one of the people who sat on the committee that scrutinized the apparition, and not only did he say that, he also said that they "never discussed the matter" and that Fr. Formigao came to them to sign on to theapproval before they had any discussions at all. Rather than object, they all signed the approval. This account can be found in the book, The Whole Truth About Fatima.

Incidentally, I have read at least 12 books on Fatima, and I am a practicing Catholic, believing all that the Church believes, including belief in the miracles of Our Lord Jesus Christ, but this apparition was false, as were many apparitions that have been occurring in the last couple of centuries. They are Jesuit inventions.

 

[anastasia2657]

One last thing to show that this Fatima case is a case of just plain old lying and Jesuitical manipulation is to read that part of the history to show that little Lucia had two other "apparitions" with two different sets of other children before the so-called "Fatima apparition" with little Jacinta and Francisco. In one prior "apparition" Lucia and the other children said that they saw a headless woman wrapped in a sheet floating in the air. There was another before this one that little is known about. However, what is known is that the townspeople ridiculed it. This is why the townspeople early on did not believe Lucia when she had the so-called "Fatima apparitions" with Jacinta and Francisco. What brought the townspeople around to believing in the apparitoin, or at least appearing to believe it, was a procession of a few "freemasons" who ridiculed the BVM. This ridiculing procession caused the Catholic people, in their defense of the BVM to appear as if they were also defending and believing in the apparition. It just so happens that this little procession ridiculing the BVM which was highly criticized by the Catholic people and the secular officials, just happened to end at the Jesuit seminary in town. . Fr. DiMarchi, who wrote several books about Fatima, said that the procession of "freemasons" ridiculing the BVM acted more to bring the people around to believing the apparition than the apparition itself.

Two Portugese professors who went into the archives and wrote a trilogy of books about Fatima (comparing Fatima to other UFO sightings) disclosed the information about the two sets of prior apparitions that Lucia had with two different sets of other children. The book among the trilogy of books disclosing these facts is entitled Celestial Secrets. These facts were buried by the Fr. Formigao of the canonical committee who instructed Lucia not to speak about them (i.e. keep her mouth shut). The prior apparition of a headless woman wrapped in a sheet floating around in the sky is also mentioned by William Thomas Walsh in his book Our Lady of Fatima. William Thomas Walsh is a Catholic author and the author of another book entitled The Last Crusade who knew William Thomas Walsh said that William Thomas Walsh said he was "sorry for ever having written about Fatima."

 

[anastasia2657]

The parish priest in town, Fr. Ferrara, who first interviewed the children when this fake apparition got started, NEVER believed in the apparition, even after the so-called Miracle of the Sun. Apparently, Fr. Ferrara was not impressed as the rest of you with the newspaper reports or anything else that people today are using to say something happened there. (other than a brilliant Portugese sun coming out from between the clouds after a grey, cloudy and rainy morning).

After Fr. Formigao got involved, Fr. Ferrara, the parish priest, was pushed aside, and eventually he was sent off to "Siberia" never to be seen or heard from again, but what is recorded for history is that he never believed it, leaving out of the accounts that he never believed it even after the so-caled "Miracle of the Sun." This is most unusual because the parish priest is usually very, very important when it comes to the scrutiny, and what he believes carries great weight in approving apparitions. Not so in the case of Fatima. He never believed it, even after the so-called "Miracle of the Sun" and while his unbelief is recorded in the beginning, his unbelief AFTER the so-called Miracle of the Sun is ignored and not written about.

Historians also have problems accounting in books for what Lucia's mother thought about the whole matter. They try hard to ignore her altogether, but when they do mention her, it is to briefly say that she "eventually came to believe her daughter". There is no foundation in fact for this conclusion, for when she is quoted in the stories related it is to say loud and clear that her daughter is a liar and deserves a good beating, which she did..

 

[anastasia2657]

On last thing about this so-called "Miracle of the Sun" is that people reading about it believe that every individual holding a secular position in government was "anti-Catholic", and heaven-forbid, a "freemason." This was not true. As a Catholic, I do not get into a frenzy when I hear the word "freemason."

The procession ridiculing the BVM was criticized in the newspapers, by the government officials, and by most of the people in the town. The people and the officials were unanimous in the opinion that ithe procession was "disrespectful" and "wrong." The mayor did not want all these pilgrims congregating on this land because as the numbers grew, it was bound to cause disorder. He tried several ways to disperse the crowds and one of the ways was to prevent the children from going to the site at the "appointed time" (and he did this with the "help" of Fr. Ferrara). The mayor took the children in his carriage to his own home, where his wife gave them lunch and had them play with the mayor's own children. The adult people were up in arms, called it a kidnapping, and when Lucia got back home she came up with this story about being put in jail, and "dancing" with the criminals who were behind bars. The story itself is absurd. The mayor was a family man, who had chidlren of his own, and he said this story about putting the children in jail was a lie, and he gave account for what truly happened. I believe his account is more credible, and I do not believe Lucia who is already a proven liar and storyteller according to Fr. Ferrara and Lucia's mother.