Replies

>You know your a big boy (or girl) why dont you just google it.
Why Catholics jump to every time you ask for proof is beyond me. Search it yourself - it is a matter of published public record.<

Indeed, which quickly provides this:

Critical evaluation of the event

Joe Nickell notes: “Not surprisingly, perhaps, Sun Miracles have been reported at other Marian sites—at Lubbock, Texas, in 1989; Mother Cabrini Shrine near Denver, Colorado, in 1992; Conyers, Georgia, in the early to mid-1990s”.[23] Nickell also suggests that the dancing effects witnessed at Fátima may have been due to optical effects resulting from temporary retinal distortion caused by staring at such an intense light.[23]

Auguste Meessen, following the work done before him by the Belgian skeptic Marc Hallet,[24] 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.[25] 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 many people within a crowd of over 10,000 testified to witnessing similar observations as at Fátima.[25] Meessen also cites a British Journal of Ophthalmology article that discusses some modern examples of Sun Miracles.[26] While Meessen suggests possible psychological or neurological explanations for the apparitions he notes, “It is impossible to provide any direct evidence for or against the supernatural origin of apparitions”.[25] He also notes that “[t]here may be some exceptions, but in general, the seers are honestly experiencing what they report.” [25]

De Marchi claims that the prediction of an unspecified “miracle”, the abrupt beginning and end of the alleged miracle of the sun, the varied religious backgrounds of the observers, the sheer numbers of people present, and the lack of any known scientific causative factor make a mass hallucination unlikely.[27] That the activity of the sun was reported as visible by those up to 18 kilometres (11 mi) away, also precludes the theory of a collective hallucination or mass hysteria.[27]

Despite these assertions, not all witnesses reported seeing the sun “dance”. Some people only saw the radiant colors. Others, including some believers, saw nothing at all.[28] No scientific accounts exist[clarification needed] of any unusual solar or astronomic activity during the time the sun was reported to have “danced”, and there are no witness reports of any unusual solar phenomenon further than 64 kilometres (40 mi) out from Cova da Iria.[29]

Pio Scatizzi, Society of Jesus, described the events of that day on Fátima, and he concluded:

The ... solar phenomena were not observed in any observatory. Impossible that they should escape notice of so many astronomers and indeed the other inhabitants of the hemisphere ... there is no question of an astronomical or meteorological event phenomenon ... Either all the observers in Fátima were collectively deceived and erred in their testimony, or we must suppose an extra-natural intervention.[30]

Steuart Campbell, writing for the edition of Journal of Meteorology in 1989, postulated that a cloud of stratospheric dust changed the appearance of the sun on 13 October, making it easy to look at, and causing it to appear to be yellow, blue, and violet, and to spin. In support of his hypothesis, Mr. Campbell reported that a blue and reddened sun was reported in China as documented in 1983.[31]
A parhelion in rainbow colors, photographed in 2005.

Joe Nickell, a skeptic and investigator of paranormal phenomena, claimed that the position of the phenomenon, as described by the various witnesses, is at the wrong azimuth and elevation to have been the sun.[32] He suggested the cause may have been a sundog. Sometimes referred to as a parhelion or “mock sun”, a sundog is a relatively common atmospheric optical phenomenon associated with the reflection and refraction of sunlight by the numerous small ice crystals that make up cirrus clouds or cirrostratus clouds.

Paul Simons, in an article entitled “Weather Secrets of Miracle at Fátima”, stated that he believes that it is possible that some of the optical effects at Fátima may have been caused by a cloud of dust from the Sahara.[33]

Kevin McClure claims that the crowd at Cova da Iria may have been expecting to see signs in the sun, since similar phenomena had been reported in the weeks leading up to the miracle. On this basis, he believes that the crowd saw what it wanted to see. However, none of the previous phenomena had to do with the sun; the focus, for the most part, was on the little tree where the lady was said to appear. Kevin McClure stated that he had never seen such a collection of contradictory accounts of a case in any of the research that he had done in the previous ten years, although he has not explicitly stated what these contradictions were.[34]

Leo Madigan believes that the various witness reports of a miracle were accurate. However, he alleges inconsistency in the accounts of witnesses, and he suggests that astonishment, fear, exaltation, and imagination must have played roles in both the observing and the retelling. Madigan likens the experiences to prayer, and considers that the spiritual nature of the phenomenon explains what he describes as the inconsistency of the witnesses.[35]

Stanley L. Jaki, a professor of physics at Seton Hall University in New Jersey, a Benedictine priest, and the author of a number of books dealing with the intersection of science and faith, proposed a unique theory about the supposed miracle.[28] Jaki believed that the event was natural and meteorological in nature, but that the fact the event occurred at the exact time predicted was a miracle.[28] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miracle_of_the_Sun#Critical_evaluation_of_the_event

However, it most likely had some real phenomena, and the Scriptural explanation is that this is support for the demonic - almost almighty Mary of Catholicism:

Even him, whose coming is after the working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders, (2 Thessalonians 2:9)

And the devil is just warming up:

And he doeth great wonders, so that he maketh fire come down from heaven on the earth in the sight of men, (Revelation 13:13)

For false Christs and false prophets shall rise, and shall shew signs and wonders, to seduce, if it were possible, even the elect. (Mark 13:22)

The demonic Mary of Catholicism is not the holy, surrendered, Spirit-filled Mary of Scripture, who was blessed among women, but one of whom Caths assert,

“sometimes salvation is quicker if we remember Mary’s name then if we invoked the name of the Lord Jesus...[who] does not at once, answer anyone who invokes him, but only does so after just judgment. But if the name of his mother Mary is invoked, her merits intercede so that he is answered even if the merits of him who invoked her do not deserve it.” Thus, “we have recourse, to thee alone, and we beseech thee to prevent thy beloved Son, who is irritated by our sins, from abandoning us to the power of the devil,” “we have but one advocate, and that is thyself, and thou alone art truly loving and solicitous for our salvation ... My Queen and my Advocate with thy Son, whom I dare not approach.” (From Judge Fairly, p. 5).. And indeed, Mary “had to suffer, as He did, all the consequences of sin,” “Jesus and Mary suffered for our sins,” thus “We were condemned through the fault of one woman; we are saved through the merits of another woman.”

For adding to what the word of God says of the virtuous, surrendered, Spirit-filled graced among women, Mary of Scripture and contrary to it, RCs assert of this demonic (yes) demigoddess that “the power thus put into her (Mary’s) hands is all but unlimited,” “surpassing in power all the angels and saints in Heaven,” and is actually “like unto Him.” for “when she acts, it is also He who acts; and that if her intervention be not accepted, neither is His,” and that “ “all in heaven and on earth, even God himself, is subject to the Blessed Virgin,” and that “the greatness of the power which she wields over one who is God cannot be conceived,” for “she seems to have the same power as God. Her prayers and requests are so powerful with him that he accepts them as commands in the sense that he never resists his dear mother’s prayer because it is always humble and conformed to his will...”

Thus “he who is under the protection of Mary will be saved; he who is not will be lost. “ For “the Holy Spirit acts only by the Most Blessed Virgin, his Spouse.” “through Whom the Holy Trinity is sanctified.” And “through her alone does He dispense His favours and His gifts,” and “it follows that there is no grace which Mary cannot dispose of as her own, which is not given to her for this purpose.”

Moreover, “Mary has authority over the angels and the blessed in heaven...God gave her the power and the mission of assigning to saints the thrones made vacant by the apostate angels who fell away through pride....all the angels in heaven unceasingly call out to her.” o that “After God, it is impossible to think of anything greater than His Mother,” to her, Jesus owes His Precious Blood...Next to God, she deserves the highest praise....no creature, can ever be compared to her:”

Sources: http://peacebyjesus.witnesstoday.org/MarySC.html#ascriptions

However, lest we imagine that in Bible times such adulation as kneeling before a statue and praising the entity it represented in the unseen world, beseeching such for Heavenly help, and making offerings to them, and giving glory and titles and ascribing attributes to such which are never given in Scripture to created beings (except to false gods) would constitute worship in Scripture, it is asserted that “we must never adore her; that is for God alone. But otherwise we cannot honor her to excess.”

This imaginary distinction btwn “hyperdulia” and “latria is consistent with the manner of perverse Cath reasoning by which we are accused of hating the Mary of Scripture by reproving their unScriptural version of her.