A
atheistgirl
Guest
There’s some very good possible explanations here, all natural, along with the fact it’s noted not everyone there saw anything unusual at all.Problem is, of course, the distant witnesses who, by their own testimony, were not expecting anything to happen. One must wonder why the atmosphere was behaving so erratically over Fatima and no where else in the World, before or since!
physicsforums.com/archive/index.php/t-149860.html
You believe it, I don’t. The evidence is good enough for you, it isn’t for me. I’m not trying to change your opinion, and you won’t change mine.
Let’s move on.
Now that’s just quote mining. The rest of that quote goes on to say:Dawkins is wrong when he says that “they had been persuaded to stare at the sun, which can’t have done much for the eyesight.” Dr. José Maria de Almeida Garrett who, unlike Dawkins, was there that day stated, “turn their backs to that spot where, until then, all their expectations had been focused…” The witnesses were not staring into the sun.
They stared at the sun."Suddenly I heard the uproar of thousands of voices, and I saw the whole multitude spread out in that vast space at my feet…turn their backs to that spot where, until then, all their expectations had been focused, and look at the sun on the other side. I turned around, too, toward the point commanding their gaze and 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. At Fatima, it kept its light and heat, and stood out clearly in the sky, with a sharp edge, like a large gaming table. The most astonishing thing was to be able to stare at the solar disc for a long time, brilliant with light and heat, without hurting the eyes or damaging the retina.
And we know what that does to the eye, whether the viewer is aware or not.
One of my heroinesAmelia Earhart’s birthday was yesterday
Of which 3 of them copied from each other and used a shared source.You can claim that the Gospels were not historical, but then again, there are four of them.
Sarah x