> > Secondly, who said anything about a conspiracy?
> You did, basically. Your whole argument is
> predicated on people pretending they are moved by
> solar anomalies, and that they go home and
> manipulate footage. It ENTIRELY ignores
> supporting testimonials. Like I said, anybody can
> concoct a conspiracy theory.
You are incorrect. My argument is about those videos, not about people looking at the sky, marveling at what they see. And everything I've read about why they're looking into the sky is that they claim to see an image of the Virgin Mary. I've see many web sites that try to superimpose an image of Mary over that part of the pareidolia to show where they see the effect. I do not doubt that those myriad of people believe they saw such an image.
But a blinking Sun? Where did they report that?
And to what "supporting testimonials" are you referring that you believe I have "ENTIRELY" ignored? Show me all those testimonies of a blinking Sun from the audience at those events. From what I've seen so far, only a couple of video cowboys have posted such videos on YouTube, and they are organizations with a vested interest in promoting such events. So where's this grand conspiracy you claim I'm "basically" suggesting?
You are the only one suggesting a conspiracy here, not I.
> I didn't miss that part at all. You are creating
> explanations here, not providing evidence.
> You have said it was easy to
> manipulate the light sensor. You made the claim.
> You probably didn't expect to be called out on
> that. Post processing is a possibility of course.
That takes nerve, my friend. I don't play that kind of game. You, on the other hand have no qualms whatsoever about completely embracing videos generated and posted by complete strangers, and yet you apparently feel no compulsion to inquire with those individuals as to the true nature of their videos, and yet you claim I am required to prove those videos are a hoax?...even when I clearly showed that a normal (darker) frame from the video can almost perfectly mimic the saturated (brighter) "blinked on" image, you still claim it's not good enough because I didn't run that same effect on multiple frames in the same video? That hardly makes any sense at all, not to mention the catastrophic double standard your position represents.
> But there are still many other challenges, such as
> the group reactions and the testimonials that some
> sort of solar anomalies occrred, which is strngly
> supported by crowds gathering to look at the sun.
Poster Boy, I have no doubt that there were "crowds gathering to look at the sun" and that there was "some sort of" anomaly occurred to make the cloud formations look like the Virgin Mary to the faithful. But no one except you and a couple of video scammers (and I'm beginning to wonder if you're one of them) have indicated anything about a blinking/winking Sun.
> Doyour own research, there are plenty of
> testimonials out there.
I've depleted my energy budget after searching for such testimonials this weekend and have found no testimonial about a blinking Sun. Apparently you know of at least one, so please post that for us.
> > this video entitled "Medjugorje - Miracle of the Sun - May 2010": (1)
The May '10 and the Dec '16 YouTube posts represent two videographers (or the same one?) similarly alternating the brightness setting as a post-processing measure. They are the only two out of all those people in the audience who suggest the sun "blinked".
> Origyptian - It is totally unfathomable to me that you are
> suggesting that all those people are there
> witnessing such a blinking Sun with zero reaction
> from the crowd whatsoever.
Again, I've suggested no such thing. You've twisted my comments into that, presumably so that you have something to throw darts at, but I've never doubted those people were very impressed by what they saw, I'm only challenging your dug-in persistence that they saw a blinking Sun when none of them seem to have indicated that's what they saw.
> That's likely it. You are so mired in your
> prespective being the only one that can be right,
> you can't fathom anything else.
And I'm sure your fabricated notion of what I said will serve to keep you at peace and happy.
> Precisely. As I said, you seem to be stuck in
> normal science mode.
As opposed to what?
- Should we follow the guy who took hallucinogens for a living?
Should we disregard what we know about physics, photography, and digital technology?
Should we unconditionally accept, and not question the veracity of, videos from complete strangers who represent organizations with a vested interest in what those videos promote?
Should we embrace a belief that not only has no scientific basis, even the faithful remain mum about the details of what they saw?
I'm hardly the one who's "stuck" in a belief system.
> It is entirely possible that
> the field between the sun and the crowds was
> subject to distortion. What this remark reveals
> from you, again, as we saw with your "ample proof"
> about the bishops not making a formal statement,
> is your shallow treatment of this entire
Then why hasn't any other member of the audience claimed to have seen that Sun blinking as it's shown in those videos? Why are you asking us to believe something that no one other than you and the YouTube posters claim happened?
> Origyptian - Do you not agree that the artifact in
> this video and also
> this one (both by TheGospaMessages) isfrom an oversaturated photo chip?
> PB - Classy there.
> PB - Once again you are entirely wrong: They are
> the same, as I said, in the sense that they were
> "apparently" supernatural events that were seen by
> many people. I was there in India. People didn't
> drop like flies. Later on in my jhournal I write
> that I was there for forty-five minutes, studying
> the situation and the people's reactions. Few
> looked up at the 'stars' for more than a couple of
> minutes. Most reverted to a normal emotional state
> quite quickly.
And apparently no one but you and a couple of YouTube posters have reported the blinking Sun, and it's not at all clear that you personally saw this directly, with your naked eye, in that same field at that same day and time, in which case you expect us to believe something you yourself have not directly observed.
> Origyptian - > Do you want to continue the
> discussion about your
> Sai Baba experience?
> That's a laugh. As for India: You, who was not
> there, will tell me, who was there, what I
> experienced in order to fit a public experience
> into your narrowly confined interpretive box. You
> seem to have an extremely high opinion of your
> judgment, so much so that you had no idea how
> irrelevant your take was on bishops not making an
> immediate statement on the Nigeria event.
Ahh, resorting to rude sarcasm now? Running out of evidence to support your point? Maybe consider a different kind of post-processing in your next YouTube post.
"...narrowly confined interpretive box..."? You're the one who doesn't understand digital post-processing, you're the one denying logic, evidence, and rationality, you're the one expecting us to disregard the harsh contradictions and believe in something that you yourself haven't even personally experienced, and you're the one avoiding doing the hard work and, instead, simply embracing the veracity of complete strangers who have a vested interest in what they're promoting without having any corroborative evidence to support it.
And you're the one throwing sarcastic insults.
Sorry, but that doesn't strike me as an enviable belief system that we should all follow.
> Your take on the sociology of what transpired is
> equally one-sided, which is to say totally biased.
Get this straight, Poster Boy, I am not offering a "take" on sociology. I fully understand the sociological phenomenon of such public events by the faithful. And if it's peaceful and doesn't impose on others, I'm in support of that.
I reiterate once again that I'm not criticizing the masses that attended those events, and I don't appreciate your repeated twisting of my posts to make it seem like I did. Rather, I'm simply rendering a technical assessment about a small number of videos that attempt to mislead the viewer (in my opinion) into believing that the audience witnessed a blinking Sun, despite the total lack of evidence of any such thing.
You keep trying to turn my apple into your orange so that you have something to attack, but I won't let that happen.
> My guess would be that the
> solar anomalies had been occurring for sometime
> prior to the footage presented...
Why do you keep referring to them as "solar anomalies" rather than call it what we're debating: a blinking Sun. Why not call it what you claimed actually happened (more accurately, something in the atmosphere between the Sun and the audience) since that's been my main contention so far. Why are you vacillating?
Ironically, (and perhaps revealing), you've said nothing at all about the possibility that the 'anomaly' was actually a vision of the Virgin Mary even though that's how most other websites characterize it. Very interesting.
> No, I won't continue this discussion with you
> because your rushes to judgement are just that.
Sorry to contradict you again, but please notice that you're the one rushing to the judgement that this solar blinking actually happened in front of those audiences. I at least went through the exercise to see for myself how easy it was to mimic the effect by simply changing the exposure level on a rudimentary free piece of image viewing software. I went through the effort to understand video photography and digital post-processing. I scoured the internet looking for independent verification of a blinking Sun only to find none.
But what finger have you lifted to show any diligence at all before rushing to your own judgement that the blinking was authentic? Do you think you've already paid your dues simply by being a "believer"?
> ...I think your treatment of this
> discussion is judgemental, pedantic and frankly
> predictably boring. I certainly won't make the
> time to answer questions for you that you could
> come up with with a little effort on your own part.
Of that I have no doubt.
> That said, Origptian, if you ever walk your talk
> and provide convincing video footage, send me a PM
> and I'll have a look. As I stressed earlier, I'm
> not saying that can't be done. However, as I also
> said, it ertainly won't close the discussion. And
> while you're at it, read up on Fatima. Do you
> really think that 70,000 people showed up in the
> pouring rain on a hill because they all decided to
> take a stroll?
I don't recall anyone at Fatima reporting a blinking Sun. Or at Guadalupe.
How can any of us ever know, when all we can do is think?
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 08-Jan-18 04:21 by Origyptian.