Ugh Fatima... the stories that young children make up.
Read this:
Illuminating the Fatima
I read the article carefully. I am not a Catholic or believer in any sort of religious dogma, but the explanations offered seem to adequately explain some effects and events, but not others. The discussion of the crowd size is not really conclusive, since it is not possible to determine how many people were in the vicinity simply by referring to a few photographs. Any conclusive evidence would probably have been garnered if the photograher (or photographers) stood on the highest point and took multiple pictures that encompassed the whole area. But inaccuracies in reported attendance for the supposed apparitions is not really the issue, and it is seemingly disingenuous to bring it in as a factor when addressing the main subject of the event.
While there are many photos of the crowd in the sun, and it was reported to be raining heavily, as far as I can remember, the rain had stopped when the apparent apparitions started, so there is really no issue there. Also, if there was a break in the rain, it would seem logical that the photographers would choose that moment to take their pictures, rather than dealing with wet equipment and less light. Finally, are all these photos conclusively authenticated as having been taken at Fatima on October 13, 1917? If not, neither side can make a good case.
The best that the author Dunning does is cast serious doubt on the veracity of the children and point a doubting finger at the journalistic accuracy of the time, although at least one of the papers reporting on the event were apparently anti-Catholic and would not want to add fuel to the fires of religious fervor. He also makes a decent (but not conclusive) case for the apparent light phenomena resulting from people staring at the sun and being predisposed to see miraculous things. He is not the first to do this.
If we can discount the children's stories, how do we account for the reported fact that people saw the sun (or some bright light) doing strange things from miles away? Did the message that something unusual was going on get passed along in minutes for miles around and cause others to "hallucinate" or otherwise make more of the phenomenon than there was?
The three "secrets" to me are beside the point, since they do not have anything to do with determining the veracity of any anomalous atmospheric events and the witnesses and newspaper reporting. Good to know that they consist of virtually nothing important or in the case of the third "secret," verifiable.
I don't know if there was something truly anomalous going on at Fatima in 1917, or people just wanted to believe so badly that mundane events and made-up stories got blown out of proportion, but conclusions on both sides appear to be comprised at least partly of wishful thinking.
Reasonable doubt does not always equal certainty, unless you subscribe to the axiom that unproven is non-existent. I think in the area of the paranormal, that doubt is a good tool, but I don't agree that something currently unexplainable (or inadequately explained or debunked) is not worthy of further study and speculation. Besides, I find it more intersesting that way.
True skepticism in great. But fundamentalist skepticism (FS) as well as belief (both involving making one's mind up what the answer is before, or instead of, looking at all the evidence) seems to afflict many people who don't realize it. Believers don't want their sense of wonder shattered and FS'ers think that the weak-minded are being led astray. Believers think that the FS'ers are obstinate, closed-minded party-poopers. The FS'ers think the believers are sheep who need saving. Who's right?
