The undeniable miracle at Fatima

[Joods]

BS, there is no law in real estate about ghosts.

This is not necessarily true.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stigmatized_property

Stambovsky v. Ackley - the property did not in fact have to *be* haunted, the seller just had to believe it was.

The OP is probably full of shit, however.

That wasn't actually a law. The only thing that Stambovsky got was his down payment back and he was allowed to back out of the contract. The judge made it clear that it wasn't any sort of buyer beware or anything like that. So technically - no, there are no laws requiring anyone wishing to sell their house to disclose any sort of non-physical issues. California might come close with something on the books about having to report a murder if it has occurred within the last three years the current owner wishes to sell the house. But outside of that - I checked. I read up on the Stambovsky v Ackley lawsuit just to see if there was some violation of any laws and there were none.

---

I read your responses. The animosity in this forum is over the top.....really bizarre.

When have you EVER seen a debate where the first candidate states something he thinks is true, and the second candidate replies, "Shut the $%^& up you @#$%"? The answer is NOWHERE. What this answer means is, "I don't have an answer to what you are saying and I am ticked off about it". Then who would win the debate? The first candidate. Stay calm guys. If someone says something to you that you believe is wrong, you only have to tell them they're wrong and why you think so. Attacking and ridiculing people is a sign you are not sure of your argument. Only in atheist forums have I seen this animosity.

Also, I'm not forcing any of you to read my thread. If it is THAT threatening to you, just read another thread. You guys act like you have all the answers on the subject of religion, yet you obviously still have a deep curiosity otherwise you wouldn't be hanging out in this Christianity sub-forum 24/7.

Bottom line on Fatima: if NOTHING at all happened in Fatima in 1917, then the newspapers wrote articles about it for nothing, and the people submitted thousands of testimonials to the Church for nothing, and the Church ran an investigation for 13 years for nothing, and made an announcement in 1930 approving of the incident for nothing. The writing is on the wall guys.

LOL you piece of shit. No one held a gun to your head and told you to post your religious crap in an atheist forum. Additionally - plenty of us have asked you to actually prove these claims with tangible scientific methodology and you FAILED time and time again to produce anything except more lies to top off your lies. And then, when you absolutely refuse to accept that we are never going to buy into your brand of woo, you concoct another story about another miracle that you expect us to just believe on your say so. When that doesn't work - you bring in the paranormal bullshit and you can't even show any proper sources for any of this. 

You got called out buddy. You told several lies and then ignored anyone who told you how factually incorrect your line of bullshit was. And you were asked to cite sources for your bullshit paranormal story. Still waiting but I won't hold my breath. 

You're out of gas on this one dude. Why don't you return back to your religious forums. I'm sure you're really popular over there and easily get anyone to believe you just because you say something really happened. 

Fuck off with you. Nobody gives a rat's ass what you believe.

[ignoramus]

You know, this is a story I rarely tell people these days because it's kinda creepy.

I worked in a morgue for just over a year.

At the end of my time there I was responsible for training the guy who would replace me.

And, one day, he was due to sit in on his first autopsy.  I warned him about not eating for the 24 hours before it.

But he did.

And do you know what happened?  No word of a lie: he puked on my shoes.

Really creepy.


What?  You expected a story of the supernatural?

You should've said: See this dead guy that just made you throw up? You know why he's dead?
Because he barfed on my shoes too!

*then pick up a meat cleaver and stare at him with crazy eyes!

[Pat Mustard]

You know, this is a story I rarely tell people these days because it's kinda creepy.

I worked in a morgue for just over a year.

At the end of my time there I was responsible for training the guy who would replace me.

And, one day, he was due to sit in on his first autopsy.  I warned him about not eating for the 24 hours before it.

But he did.

And do you know what happened?  No word of a lie: he puked on my shoes.

Really creepy.


What?  You expected a story of the supernatural?

I hope you bullwhipped him until he'd all the puke licked up.

[Ravenshire]

I read your responses. The animosity in this forum is over the top.....really bizarre.

When have you EVER seen a debate where the first candidate states something he thinks is true, and the second candidate replies, "Shut the $%^& up you @#$%"? The answer is NOWHERE. What this answer means is, "I don't have an answer to what you are saying and I am ticked off about it". Then who would win the debate? The first candidate. Stay calm guys. If someone says something to you that you believe is wrong, you only have to tell them they're wrong and why you think so. Attacking and ridiculing people is a sign you are not sure of your argument. Only in atheist forums have I seen this animosity.

Also, I'm not forcing any of you to read my thread. If it is THAT threatening to you, just read another thread. You guys act like you have all the answers on the subject of religion, yet you obviously still have a deep curiosity otherwise you wouldn't be hanging out in this Christianity sub-forum 24/7.

Bottom line on Fatima: if NOTHING at all happened in Fatima in 1917, then the newspapers wrote articles about it for nothing, and the people submitted thousands of testimonials to the Church for nothing, and the Church ran an investigation for 13 years for nothing, and made an announcement in 1930 approving of the incident for nothing. The writing is on the wall guys.

PBR, you gonna provide that case number or just stand there with you dick in your hand. You could be the first to post some actual evidence of your bullshit claims.

[Harry Nevis]

I read your responses. The animosity in this forum is over the top.....really bizarre.

When have you EVER seen a debate where the first candidate states something he thinks is true, and the second candidate replies, "Shut the $%^& up you @#$%"? The answer is NOWHERE. What this answer means is, "I don't have an answer to what you are saying and I am ticked off about it". Then who would win the debate? The first candidate. Stay calm guys. If someone says something to you that you believe is wrong, you only have to tell them they're wrong and why you think so. Attacking and ridiculing people is a sign you are not sure of your argument. Only in atheist forums have I seen this animosity.

Also, I'm not forcing any of you to read my thread. If it is THAT threatening to you, just read another thread. You guys act like you have all the answers on the subject of religion, yet you obviously still have a deep curiosity otherwise you wouldn't be hanging out in this Christianity sub-forum 24/7.

Bottom line on Fatima: if NOTHING at all happened in Fatima in 1917, then the newspapers wrote articles about it for nothing, and the people submitted thousands of testimonials to the Church for nothing, and the Church ran an investigation for 13 years for nothing, and made an announcement in 1930 approving of the incident for nothing. The writing is on the wall guys.

The animosity comes from you lying when you asked what we think, and then refusing to open you eyes to any other explanations than what you decided was true.

[pocaracas]

This CONFIRMS that SOMETHING HUGE happened the day before, or the newspapers wouldn't have printed these articles.  The people would never have showed up there in the first place if it weren't for the children announcing there would be a miracle there 3 months earlier. It's obvious you people are trying to avoid the inevitable answer here!

There's a thing that you're missing... a thing that believers like to miss: psychology.

These two stories were published a few days after the event.
Any testimony that is provided afterwards will most surely be tainted by these reports. And our minds are fickle things... our memories, on which we depend so much, can be altered or enhanced, thus leaving us sure about some event... even though it didn't happen as we remember it.
Have a read of articles like this http://edition.cnn.com/2013/05/18/health...index.html

Something must have happened, surely. But I wouldn't put it past some atmospheric lensing effect that caused the sun to seemingly wobble, probably caused by the rapidly evaporating rain water.
Anything that is said beyond that, will either have been suggested by this news story, or caused by looking at the sun for too long... or straight out lies. Any of these effects (and even all combined) is far more likely to have occurred than any supernatural sun manipulation with only locally visible effects.

So, next time you think about a miracle evidenced by testimonies and nothing else, remember that all of them can be stained.... certainly, that makes them way less than "undeniable".

[Mister Agenda]

I've already addressed this in a previous post. The author claims that from his research, the miracle was visible within a 600 square mile area. Testimonials show that everyone who was there that day saw it. There are no testimonials of people who were on the spot who said they saw nothing. Reading other testimonials confirms this. Remember, THOUSANDS of pages of testimonials were reviewed by the Catholic Church over 13 years. And as I already mentioned, the book I mentioned gives many examples of people that were NOT believers and who went to the site to mock the whole idea. They left as believers. You should really get the book because everything you are saying is covered in it.

It was a local phenomenon. The sun is not a local phenomenon. No matter what those people saw, the sun didn't actually move, nor did the earth magically and safely wobble so much that the sun appeared to move.

Even with a supernatural cause, all you've got is a mass vision; something people were perceiving that wasn't actually happening.

And there are lots of natural explanations for people, even in a group, seeing something that isn't actually happening.

---

BS, there is no law in real estate about ghosts.

However, the courts have ruled that if a seller is aware that the property has a reputation for being haunted, that is a fact germane to the buyer's decision that must be disclosed. The ruling isn't that ghosts are real, just that if the seller knows that a property has that reputation, it's both part of their disclosure responsibility and something that a building inspection won't turn up.

There was a relevant case in 1990 known as the 'Ghostbuster Case'. There was evidence that the seller was the source of the rumors that the house was haunted, so he was in a pickle when it came to claiming he didn't know it was haunted.

---

I read your responses. The animosity in this forum is over the top.....really bizarre.

When have you EVER seen a debate where the first candidate states something he thinks is true, and the second candidate replies, "Shut the $%^& up you @#$%"?

This is the actual content of the first reply to your OP, from Min: "Bullshit from the word "go." Designed to fool morons."

Maybe the animosity you detect is because you're a lying sack of crap.

---

Bottom line on Fatima: if NOTHING at all happened in Fatima in 1917, then the newspapers wrote articles about it for nothing, and the people submitted thousands of testimonials to the Church for nothing, and the Church ran an investigation for 13 years for nothing, and made an announcement in 1930 approving of the incident for nothing. The writing is on the wall guys.

Speaking of you being a lying sack of crap, none of us have claimed that NOTHING at all happened in Fatima in 1917. The general consensus it that it was a local phenomena where a lot of people claimed to have seen something that didn't actually happen, probably due to a combination of atmospheric conditions, the effect of looking directly at the sun for too long, and a strong desire to witness the miracle other people said they were seeing.

[Joods]

BS, there is no law in real estate about ghosts.

However, the courts have ruled that if a seller is aware that the property has a reputation for being haunted, that is a fact germane to the buyer's decision that must be disclosed. The ruling isn't that ghosts are real, just that if the seller knows that a property has that reputation, it's both part of their disclosure responsibility and something that a building inspection won't turn up.

There was a relevant case in 1990 known as the 'Ghostbuster Case'. There was evidence that the seller was the source of the rumors that the house was haunted, so he was in a pickle when it came to claiming he didn't know it was haunted.

Read my response to CD about that case. The court did not rule non-disclosure as fraudulent. But the buyer was allowed to get his down payment back and get out of the contract. Sellers should be honest about what they know, but there are no laws on the books directing them to reveal whether or not their house is indeed haunted.

The brief itself from that case. Here's just a snippet from the first page of that briefing: 

While I agree with Supreme Court that the real estate broker, as agent for the seller, is under no duty to disclose to a potential buyer the phantasmal reputation of the premises and that, in his pursuit of a legal remedy for fraudulent misrepresentation against the seller, plaintiff hasn't a ghost of a chance, I am nevertheless moved by the spirit of equity to allow the buyer to seek rescission of the contract of sale and recovery of his down payment. New York law fails to recognize any remedy for damages incurred as a result of the seller's mere silence, applying instead the strict rule of caveat emptor. Therefore, the theoretical basis for granting relief, even under the extraordinary facts of this case, is elusive if not ephemeral.

bolding mine. 

See? No laws on the books in NY regarding disclosure of supernatural phenomenon.

[Jackalope]

This is not necessarily true.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stigmatized_property

Stambovsky v. Ackley - the property did not in fact have to *be* haunted, the seller just had to believe it was.

The OP is probably full of shit, however.

That wasn't actually a law. The only thing that Stambovsky got was his down payment back and he was allowed to back out of the contract. The judge made it clear that it wasn't any sort of buyer beware or anything like that. So technically - no, there are no laws requiring anyone wishing to sell their house to disclose any sort of non-physical issues. California might come close with something on the books about having to report a murder if it has occurred within the last three years the current owner wishes to sell the house. But outside of that - I checked. I read up on the Stambovsky v Ackley lawsuit just to see if there was some violation of any laws and there were none.

It's a tort, not a criminal law. Torts are frequently based on common law, not statue law. You aren't going to find a statute that says "you must disclose that you think your house is haunted'. That the owner believes the house is haunted is a material fact. If it wasn't there would be no basis for finding for the plaintiff.

[Joods]

True that, but our OP was grossly misrepresenting fact by stating there are actual laws (and failing miserably to cite any of them) about paranormal/supernatural incidences pertaining to real estate. My whole point was in the fact that once again, he is a lying liar who's done nothing more than lie out his lying liar hole.