*** Summary of Professor Auguste Meessen's Thesis (Title: Apparitions and Miracles of the Sun, Reference link: http://www.meessen.net/AMeessen/Apparitions_and_Miracles_of_the_Sun.pdf) ***

The Miracle of Fátima (the Miracle of the Sun) was an optical effect caused by looking at the sun for a time.

Retinal after-images cause dancing effects.

Bleaching of photosensitive retinal cells causes usually temporary damage and is responsible for the flashes of colour.

================================================================================

*** Refutation of catholic apologist (Author of the reference link –> https://www.markmallett.com/blog/2017/10/14/debunking-the-sun-miracle-sk...) ***

In the reports from eyewitnesses in Fatima, the miracle of the sun lasted not seconds, but minutes, and perhaps as long as “ten minutes.”

Eyewitnesses stated that the clouds had broken and “the sun at its zenith appeared in all its splendor,” and so onlookers were staring directly at the sun.

To stare at the bare sun at noon for even a minute—if that were even possible—would likely have been enough to cause permanent eye damage in at least a few people.

But out of tens of thousands of people, there were no reports of a single person having incurred eye damage, let alone blindness. (On the other hand, this has occurred at some alleged Marian apparition sites where certain people have gone looking for a miracle).

Professor Meesen’s logic further falls apart by stating that the dancing effects of the sun were merely the result of retinal after-images.

If that were the case, then the miracle of the sun witnessed at Fatima should be easily duplicated in your own backyard.

In fact, to be certain, the thousands gathered that day would have looked up at the sun later that afternoon and in the days following to see if the miracle would repeat.

If the “miracle” that October 13th was only the result of retinal images or “the bleaching of photosensitive retinal cells,” the skeptics and secular newspapers who had earlier been ridiculing the three shepherd children would surely have pointed this out.

The aftermath of excitement would have quickly dissipated as people began to readily duplicate “retinal after-images.”

The opposite is true. Eyewitnesses described the sight as a “prodigy,” something “incapable of describing,” and a “remarkable spectacle.”

What is remarkable about something that one could easily duplicate an hour later?

C.

Nickell also suggests that the dancing effects witnessed at Fatima may have been due to optical effects resulting from temporary retinal distortion caused by staring at such an intense light. —Skeptical Inquirer, Volume 33.6 November / December 2009

R.

In no cases do we read of any eyewitnesses reporting lingering optical effects.

The prodigy seemed to simply end when the sun, after appearing to zig-zag to the earth, resumed its normal course; eyewitnesses reported that the phenomenon lasted only so long and then abruptly ended.

However, if Nickell’s explanation were true, the retinal distortion should have continued as long as people continued to stare at the sun… an hour, three hours, all day long.

This contradicts reports that indicate that the miracle had a definitive ending.

Furthermore, eyewitnesses specifically noted that the sun did not appear as an ‘intense light,’ but rather it appeared “pale and did not hurt my eyes” and “enveloped in… gauzy grey light” and began to emit “multicolored flashes of light, producing the most astounding effect.”

It is worth noting that during an eclipse of the sun, or when the sun is under thick cloud covering, it can be looked at without any perceived discomfort.

However, in these cases the sun is blocked by another object, and in fact, can still cause serious and permanent harm.

=================================================================================

What’s wrong with this refutation of catholic apologist? This is what I really wonder.

I would appreciate if you would comment on my question.