Our Lady to appear in Knock on Sunday

Cheeky_gal

JONJO THE MISER wrote: »

our Lady will appear in Knock on Sunday

I was telling everyone that she was gonna appear in Castleknock after reading this thread haha thought Knock was slang for Castleknock stupid cheeky

_blank_

Cheeky_gal wrote: »

I was telling everyone that she was gonna appear in Castleknock after reading this thread haha thought Knock was slang for Castleknock stupid cheeky

Cheeky_gal

Des wrote: »

Des

NedTermo

Cheeky_gal wrote: »

Des

If she has time she'll swing by there too.

gman2k

Image Of Virgin Mary Appears In Bird Dropping On Area Family’s Truck (Link)

franklyshocked

gman2k wrote: »

Image Of Virgin Mary Appears In Bird Dropping On Area Family’s Truck (Link)

As no one else has gone there yet, literally, Holy sh1t!

NUTLEY BOY

I still prefer the Holy Stone of Clonrickart. I think they might be upgrading it again especially if Dermot Morgan materialises.

stevedublin

My name is URL wrote: »

Is that the one that used to be on the game?

So many Marys... it gets confusing

Thats Mary Magdalene you're thinking of.
Is she any good?

partyatmygaff

DarkJager wrote: »

People seeing apparitions and holy tree stumps sums up everything thats wrong about Ireland. Such people don't even have the IQ of a half a slice of bread let alone a whole ****ing sandwich.

If you stand beside someone who claims to see something and you can disprove it, talk. If not then all you can do is spout "Its all fake because Its the cool thing to say".

When you disprove something without any first-hand experience of something or even a slight bit of knowledge of something then you are the one with the IQ of a half a slice of bread. If you have never experienced something does that mean its fake or its impossible? You probably have not experienced landing on the moon, does that mean its fake or impossible? You've never seen huge electrical arcs coming from a power station, does that mean it doesn't exist?

When you go there and experience something for yourself, come back and show us how your mind and your high IQ has proven the thousands of moronic fools with an IQ less than half a slice of bread who said they saw an apparition. If your not willing to do that, then your opinion is worth nothing at all.

Dinner

partyatmygaff wrote: »

When you disprove something without any first-hand experience of something or even a slight bit of knowledge of something then you are the one with the IQ of a half a slice of bread.

So, because we weren't there we should just take the word of the people who were there and not question it?

partyatmygaff wrote: »

You probably have not experienced landing on the moon, does that mean its fake or impossible? You've never seen huge electrical arcs coming from a power station, does that mean it doesn't exist?

There is evidence that man landed on the moon, from video tape footage to the recent LCROSS pictures and also the data gained from pointing lasers at the mirrors left on the surface. I know electrical arcs exist because of video evidence and because there is a plausible scientific explanation for it.

I do not believe that Mary appeared in Knock because for her to do so would involve the entire suspension of physics and the only 'evidence' is of a dodgy camera pointed directly at the sun. If I do not question this, frankly, ridiculous event, then I have the IQ of a loaf of bread.

baaaa

Does anyone know what's in it for those involved?

partyatmygaff

Dinner wrote: »

So, because we weren't there we should just take the word of the people who were there and not question it?
I never said you have to take their word nor that it is unquestionable, I just said you cannot call it fake or impossible as you were not there and never experienced something like it.


There is evidence that man landed on the moon, from video tape footage to the recent LCROSS pictures and also the data gained from pointing lasers at the mirrors left on the surface. I know electrical arcs exist because of video evidence and because there is a plausible scientific explanation for it.
This evidence has been challenged by Conspiracy Theorists who as crazy as they may be have some compelling points such as the flag blowing in the wind despite the moon being without any wind. There is also video and photographic evidence of alot of apparitions. Science is not a complete breakdown of how the world works and any scientist should know this.

I do not believe that Mary appeared in Knock because for her to do so would involve the entire suspension of physics and the only 'evidence' is of a dodgy camera pointed directly at the sun. If I do not question this, frankly, ridiculous event, then I have the IQ of a loaf of bread.
Any new phenomenon that has been discovered suspended the known laws of science at the time and with due time became fact. Not everything is a dodgy camera pointed at the sun, what benefit would they have tampering with a photo when they the testimony of a few thousand people. And you are quite right, refusal to question and find meaning to something does mean you have the IQ of a loaf of bread. Refusing to even attempt to delve a little deeper into it to understand would be ignorant and quite frankly stupid.

.

Bobeagleburger

baaaa wrote: »

Does anyone know what's in it for those involved?

free boards membership

gman2k

partyatmygaff wrote: »

.

No sorry, it's a load of boll0cks.
Man was on the moon, the conspiracy theorists theories don't have a leg to stand on, same goes for 9/11 doubters.
There is no compelling evidence to believe anything happened in Knock.
The crackpot psychic from Dublin is simply that - a crackpot.
If the ghost of some dead Jewish woman from 2000 years ago (LOL) wanted to appear and ensure we were all to believe, why doesn't she do an apparition on Tubridy's show tonight. You know it's not going to happen, simple reason is because it's a load of boll0cks.
If that makes me a half pan of bread!, then anybody who swallows this sh1t or even says that it's possible is only a slice!!!!

partyatmygaff

gman2k wrote: »

No sorry, it's a load of boll0cks.
Man was on the moon, the conspiracy theorists theories don't have a leg to stand on, same goes for 9/11 doubters.
There is no compelling evidence to believe anything happened in Knock.
The crackpot psychic from Dublin is simply that - a crackpot.
If the ghost of some dead Jewish woman from 2000 years ago (LOL) wanted to appear and ensure we were all to believe, why doesn't she do an apparition on Tubridy's show tonight. You know it's not going to happen, simple reason is because it's a load of boll0cks.
If that makes me a half pan of bread!, then anybody who swallows this sh1t or even says that it's possible is only a slice!!!!

Why is it a load of boll0cks? Have you been there, have you seen anything to disprove it? Conspiracy Theorists are generally crazy I agree but I was using that as an example not as a point. There is compelling evidence to believe something happened, the testimony of a large number of people young and old, not only in knock but in many different places. The psychic is more than likely a crackpot but thats not the point, this is about apparitions not about whether psychics are liars or not. The christian view on things is that you look for belief, belief doesn't go looking for you, you want to prove this right or wrong, any large group of people report seeing an apparition, go there and prove or disprove it.

How do you know its impossible? How much physics do you know and the bigger question is how much can physics explain?

zuroph

partyatmygaff wrote: »

Why is it a load of boll0cks? Have you been there, have you seen anything to disprove it? Conspiracy Theorists are generally crazy I agree but I was using that as an example not as a point. There is compelling evidence to believe something happened, the testimony of a large number of people young and old, not only in knock but in many different places. The psychic is more than likely a crackpot but thats not the point, this is about apparitions not about whether psychics are liars or not. The christian view on things is that you look for belief, belief doesn't go looking for you, you want to prove this right or wrong, any large group of people report seeing an apparition, go there and prove or disprove it.

How do you know its impossible? How much physics do you know and the bigger question is how much can physics explain?

the only evidence is that a number of people who were there because they WANTED to see something, stared directly at the sun, and saw shapes, colours and movement.
Do an experiment for me. Stare directly at the lightbulb in your room. Its not nearly as bright as the sun, but should present some interesting phenomona to you. Its difficult to see if something is moving or not in the sky, mainly due to moving clouds, and nothing else to give it perspective. secondly, the most common description we've gotten is the sun was "spinning", surely you cannot see if a perfect sphere, too bright to focus on, is spinning or not. the colours are due to blinking, and the eyes struggling to deal with the brightness. Try the experiment, perhaps Mary will appear in your house.
We've already have several people arrive on this thread and lie about their scepticism and belief structure when trying to convince people that something happened. How sad is it that these people will knowingly stoop to lies to prove their belief?! Can it even be called a belief after that, or are they really just lying to themselves?

partyatmygaff

zuroph wrote: »

the only evidence is that a number of people who were there because they WANTED to see something, stared directly at the sun, and saw shapes, colours and movement.
Do an experiment for me. Stare directly at the lightbulb in your room. Its not nearly as bright as the sun, but should present some interesting phenomona to you. Its difficult to see if something is moving or not in the sky, mainly due to moving clouds, and nothing else to give it perspective. secondly, the most common description we've gotten is the sun was "spinning", surely you cannot see if a perfect sphere, too bright to focus on, is spinning or not. the colours are due to blinking, and the eyes struggling to deal with the brightness. Try the experiment, perhaps Mary will appear in your house.
We've already have several people arrive on this thread and lie about their scepticism and belief structure when trying to convince people that something happened(Really? Thats great but I am not one of those people) How sad is it that these people will knowingly stoop to lies to prove their belief?! Can it even be called a belief after that, or are they really just lying to themselves?

Not everyone "wanted" to see anything, ordinary people including athiests and people of other religions witness apparitions and confirm they saw what everyone else saw, would these people not just try and disprove it?
Prove to me these people are lying.... Then say they are basing their belief in what they say on a lie. Why would they lie? The regular ordinary non-believing person would not benefit one bit from saying they saw something, so why lie?

Dinner

partyatmygaff wrote: »

I never said you have to take their word nor that it is unquestionable, I just said you cannot call it fake or impossible as you were not there and never experienced something like it.

I can very safely draw the conclusion that it is that nothing happened in Knock that day, despite the fact that I wasn't there. I think it is very probable that everything that people believe they saw can be explained by wishful thinking, exaggeration, herd mentality and most importantly of all; staring at the sun.

I can draw this conclusion because it is obvious that nothing actually happened to the sun. If the sun did dance around the sky then the entire Solar System would have been thrown into chaos. So the next 'religious' explanation is that Mary somehow made a (mass-less) second sun that was invisible to anyone outside of Knock, simultaneously she made the actual sun be hidden to anybody that was in Knock so they didn't see 2 suns. She then made the second sun move around a bit and change colours before merging it with the original sun and the laws of physics pieced themselves back together after being torn apart for a little while.

Alternatively, we can bring Occam's Razor into the mix and determine that nothing unusual happened with the sun that day. Instead lots of people stared at the sun and were surprised when they saw colours and thought they saw it move.

partyatmygaff wrote: »

This evidence has been challenged by Conspiracy Theorists who as crazy as they may be have some compelling points such as the flag blowing in the wind despite the moon being without any wind. There is also video and photographic evidence of alot of apparitions. Science is not a complete breakdown of how the world works and any scientist should know this.

And any challenge put forward by a conspiracy theorist has been systematically torn apart. The flag moved because there was no wind or air. There are no compelling points put forward by conspiracy theorists about the moon landings. There have been many threads on that subject in the Conspiracy Theories forum where people like King Mob and Diogenes have very clearly debunked such myths.

There is little or no actual reliable evidence about apparitions. And for every Catholic story about an apparitions or miracle you can be damn sure there is just as many from other religions. The milk drinking Ganesh for example.

partyatmygaff wrote: »

Any new phenomenon that has been discovered suspended the known laws of science at the time and with due time became fact.

And each new 'phenomenon' is rigorously tested over and over again before being accepted and any relevant hypothesis or theories amended.

partyatmygaff wrote: »

Not everything is a dodgy camera pointed at the sun, what benefit would they have tampering with a photo when they the testimony of a few thousand people.

It gives merit to their position. It allows people who are already inclined towards miracles to believe in yet another. But in this case, it would give Joe Coleman more money. That being said, I'm not saying the video was modified. Quite obviously it wasn't, because it doesn't show anything.

partyatmygaff

Dinner wrote: »

I can very safely draw the conclusion that it is that nothing happened in Knock that day, despite the fact that I wasn't there. I think it is very probable that everything that people believe they saw can be explained by wishful thinking, exaggeration, herd mentality and most importantly of all; staring at the sun.
We are talking about an apparition ala Lourdes/Zeitoun etc, the moving sun can be just optical phenomena which is quite reasonable, apparitions are different, there is no scientific explanation and thats fine, science is not meant to explain everything.

I can draw this conclusion because it is obvious that nothing actually happened to the sun. If the sun did dance around the sky then the entire Solar System would have been thrown into chaos. So the next 'religious' explanation is that Mary somehow made a (mass-less) second sun that was invisible to anyone outside of Knock, simultaneously she made the actual sun be hidden to anybody that was in Knock so they didn't see 2 suns. She then made the second sun move around a bit and change colours before merging it with the original sun and the laws of physics pieced themselves back together after being torn apart for a little while.
Look at the first point in bold.

Alternatively, we can bring Occam's Razor into the mix and determine that nothing unusual happened with the sun that day. Instead lots of people stared at the sun and were surprised when they saw colours and thought they saw it move.
Quite Possible, this however does not apply to any apparitions.


And any challenge put forward by a conspiracy theorist has been systematically torn apart. The flag moved because there was no wind or air. There are no compelling points put forward by conspiracy theorists about the moon landings. There have been many threads on that subject in the Conspiracy Theories forum where people like King Mob and Diogenes have very clearly debunked such myths.
Ok, I agree with this and have said that before.

There is little or no actual reliable evidence about apparitions. And for every Catholic story about an apparitions or miracle you can be damn sure there is just as many from other religions. The milk drinking Ganesh for example.
Quite wrong, there is reliable evidence with the most recent and best documented being the Marian apparition at zeitoun, witnessed by millions over the course of a year of various religions or lack of religion. Photographed and videos tooken. I can safely say 1 million or so people witnessing the same thing are not lying, scientists for example vistited the site and witnessed what everyone else saw and no one called everyone else who saw the apparition crazy. Isolated incidents from other religions which hardly ever have more than a few witnesses can be doctored. Repeated incidents with thousands/millions of incidents cannot be all doctored.


And each new 'phenomenon' is rigorously tested over and over again before being accepted and any relevant hypothesis or theories amended.
Yes, apparitions have been occuring over the centuries.


It gives merit to their position. It allows people who are already inclined towards miracles to believe in yet another. But in this case, it would give Joe Coleman more money. That being said, I'm not saying the video was modified. Quite obviously it wasn't, because it doesn't show anything.

.

gman2k

partyatmygaff wrote: »

There is compelling evidence to believe something happened

How do you know its impossible? How much physics do you know and the bigger question is how much can physics explain?

No, there is no compelling evidence. I looked at the youtube videos, and they are sad beyond belief. If someone comes up with compelling evidence, then I'll believe it.

How much do I know about Physics? Quite a lot actually, although I never studied it outside of school, the history of late 19th and 20th Century physics is favourite reading topic of mine. A very good book I can recommend is Making of the Atomic Bomb by Richard Rhodes.
There is very little that physics cannot explain at the moment actually. Current research is outside the realms of our everyday existence - quantum research, big bang theories, grand unified theory etc
One thing that is without question however is that the sun (our nearest star) did not start spinning and leaping about recently. And was only visible doing so from a small town in Mayo.
What happened is that many people had optical illusions after staring into the sun for too long.
Reminds me of Darren Aronofsky's movie Pi:
Maximillian Cohen: When I was a little kid, my mother told me not to
stare into the sun, so when I was six I did...

Dinner

partyatmygaff wrote: »

We are talking about an apparition ala Lourdes/Zeitoun etc, the moving sun can be just optical phenomena which is quite reasonable, apparitions are different, there is no scientific explanation and thats fine, science is not meant to explain everything.

The phrase 'no scientific explanation' implies that something happened. There is also the other option that nothing out of the ordinary happened and herd mentality and hysteria etc. took over.

partyatmygaff wrote: »

Quite Possible, this however does not apply to any apparitions.

A very similar situation applies. Less staring at the sun and more herd mentality and hysteria.

partyatmygaff wrote: »

Quite wrong, there is reliable evidence with the most recent and best documented being the Marian apparition at zeitoun, witnessed by millions over the course of a year of various religions or lack of religion. Photographed and videos tooken. I can safely say 1 million or so people witnessing the same thing are not lying, scientists for example vistited the site and witnessed what everyone else saw and no one called everyone else who saw the apparition crazy. Isolated incidents from other religions which hardly ever have more than a few witnesses can be doctored. Repeated incidents with thousands/millions of incidents cannot be all doctored.

You got a link to these videos? Having been through the Marian Apparition in a different thread the only picture that was posted was of a dodgy negative. And it looks like to me is a nondescript splodge. If that 'splodge' had been in the sky, which it wasn't, and had it been seen in Southern United states it would be used as proof of UFOs. It doesn't prove anything.

As for the apparent 'millions' that turned up (a figure that would appear to be massively inflated), isn't it funny how no one managed to get a decent photo? Isn't it interesting that this occurred over a number of years yet no one thought to put a decent video camera there? It was the late 60s, so the technology existed, it would have been very easy to have a decent quality camera knocking around. If it was such definitive proof then how come the pope never goes there, how come Christians don't travel there en mass like a Christian Mecca? The fact is, that it is not definitive proof, it's not even non-definitive proof.

partyatmygaff wrote: »

Yes, apparitions have been occuring over the centuries.

No, people think that apparitions have been happening throughout the centuries. That doesn't mean they have. I don't think they are all lying. I'm sure some of them genuinely believe they saw an apparition. But none of them stand up to even the most basic scrutiny. And more to the point none of these apparitions have had any affect science. There has been no apparition that has required science to readdress itself.

partyatmygaff

Dinner wrote: »

The phrase 'no scientific explanation' implies that something happened. There is also the other option that nothing out of the ordinary happened and herd mentality and hysteria etc. took over.



A very similar situation applies. Less staring at the sun and more herd mentality and hysteria.



You got a link to these videos? Having been through the Marian Apparition in a different thread the only picture that was posted was of a dodgy negative. And it looks like to me is a nondescript splodge. If that 'splodge' had been in the sky, which it wasn't, and had it been seen in Southern United states it would be used as proof of UFOs. It doesn't prove anything.

As for the apparent 'millions' that turned up (a figure that would appear to be massively inflated), isn't it funny how no one managed to get a decent photo? Isn't it interesting that this occurred over a number of years yet no one thought to put a decent video camera there? It was the late 60s, so the technology existed, it would have been very easy to have a decent quality camera knocking around. If it was such definitive proof then how come the pope never goes there, how come Christians don't travel there en mass like a Christian Mecca? The fact is, that it is not definitive proof, it's not even non-definitive proof.




No, people think that apparitions have been happening throughout the centuries. That doesn't mean they have. I don't think they are all lying. I'm sure some of them genuinely believe they saw an apparition. But none of them stand up to even the most basic scrutiny. And more to the point none of these apparitions have had any affect science. There has been no apparition that has required science to readdress itself.

Your trying to say apparitions are trying to change science, why would they?

http://www.zeitun-eg.org/zeitngal.htm

Have a look through there....

I really don't feel like arguing anymore, its just a back and forth attempt to disprove what the other person said. I won't change your mind and you won't change mine.

Dinner

partyatmygaff wrote: »

Your trying to say apparitions are trying to change science, why would they?

You said;

Any new phenomenon that has been discovered suspended the known laws of science at the time and with due time became fact.

I replied by saying that each new discovery was rigorously tested, you responded that apparitions have been happening for centuries. I assumed that you meant that apparitions had changed science's thinking.

partyatmygaff wrote: »

http://www.zeitun-eg.org/zeitngal.htm

Have a look through there....

Yeah that's the site that was linked to in the other thread a while ago. It's also the site that uses the dodgy negatives a proof of the Zeitoun apparition. It's not.

partyatmygaff

Dinner wrote: »

You said;


I replied by saying that each new discovery was rigorously tested, you responded that apparitions have been happening for centuries. I assumed that you meant that apparitions had changed science's thinking.
Not at all, Why would they anyway?


Yeah that's the site that was linked to in the other thread a while ago. It's also the site that uses the dodgy negatives a proof of the Zeitoun apparition. It's not what exactly?.
I don't see any negative images, black and white yes, Negative images would have the sky as being white and the whatever that was white as being black. Islamic newspaper editors confirmed there was no possibility of photo-montage and believe me, they would be the first to try and disprove anything like this

.

CreepingDeath

I heard that "our lady" is to appear in Knock to open a new Aldi supermarket.

Dean820

I saw that fella who predicted she would appear on the news last night, never trust a fella who wears a Man United jersey for an interview on national television. Very shady looking.

Dinner

partyatmygaff wrote: »

Not at all, Why would they anyway?

I was just confused that your reply mentioned apparitions when that wasn't the subject of that sentence, so I assumed that you believe that apparitions were triggers for changes to science.

partyatmygaff wrote: »

I don't see any negative images, black and white yes, Negative images would have the sky as being white and the whatever that was white as being black. Islamic newspaper editors confirmed there was no possibility of photo-montage and believe me, they would be the first to try and disprove anything like this

Perhaps negative is the wrong word, there's an article in the link below saying that the picture was drawn from memory.
I've just had a little bit of a search and as it turns out, the other thread on Zeitoun that I was thinking about was started by yourself. With that in mind, I'm not going to bother debating this whole subject again. Just read your own thread again and it should cover the main details of both of our arguments. Probably best to let this thread go back to being about herself playing with the sun.

Alessandra

This is ridiculous. The parish priest has even said it's rubbish. Knock is thriving from the business though!

PFJSplitter

Ah, the 'parish priest', :eek: the LEAST trustworthy source to walk the planet. Let's see a show of hands from ALL here who trust the word of a 'parish priest' - just as I thought, not a single hand up!

Alessandra

Smart. I am not placing any merit in what the priest(or indeed anyone else) has to say in the issue. Considering the Roman Catholic Church in Ireland support the first "apparition" in Knock, presumably they would be open to the idea were there any supposed "truth" in them.