Did the Knock Apparition Really Stand Two Feet Above the Ground?
About 15 people said they saw
the image of the Blessed Virgin Mary appear in a great light flanked by St
Joseph and St John at the gable wall of the Roman Catholic Church in Knock on
the 21st August 1879. A lamb standing on an altar was also reported.
They did not see the apparition
coming or going. Nor did any of them claim it was the actual Mary, Joseph and
John they saw.
Witness testimonies were
complied at a Church investigation in 1879 and 1880.
The above picture shows how there are indications that the images at Knock
thought to be an apparition appeared in a ball of light as marked by the yellow
circle. A witness said he saw a globe of light - that is it was 3-D. Thus the
globe would have been high up. No other witnesses spoke of a globe of light. The
position above fits the witness's claim that he saw a brilliant a light that
appeared high up in the air above and around the chapel gable. You would expect
the images to be standing inside the light. Could it be that the hoaxer made a
mistake and the light was in the wrong place? Were the images below it and just
brightened up by the light reflecting on them? Or were the images themselves
within the light and thus higher up than traditionally believed?
Did the Vision really stand two feet above the ground?
Witness Patrick Walsh's testimony,
My name is Patrick Walsh; I live at Ballinderrig, an English mile from the
chapel of Knock. I remember well the 21st of August, 1879. It was a very dark
night. It was raining heavily. About nine o'clock on that night I was going on
some business through my land, and standing a distance of about half a mile from
the chapel, I saw a very bright light on the southern gable-end of the chapel ;
it appeared to be a large globe of golden light ; I never saw, I thought, so
brilliant a light before; it appeared high up in the air above and around the
chapel gable, and it was circular in its appearance ; it was quite stationary,
and it seemed to retain the same brilliancy all through. The following day I
made inquiries in order to learn if there were any lights seen in place that
night; it was only then I heard of the Vision or Apparition that the people had
seen.
Ballinderrig is a townland in the vicinity of Knock in the Ballyhaunis direction. You would get no good or direct view of the gable from it at all. If he saw a light then it was not on the gable but higher up. Research presented to scientific investigator Joe Nickell has found that there would have been sun shining at an odd angle on to the school house and possibly reflected from it to the gable - so did Walsh actually mistake the light on the school gable for the Church gable?
The Walsh testimony is altered. Tradition including
that of Walsh's own family members say he thought he saw a fire. Now if
Walsh had seen a fire then it would have to appear to be coming from the roof of
the Church! If Walsh saw a light at the Church then it was high up and not
where the Church wants you to think it is. Also the heavy rain tale is
refuted by other sources. It was drizzle. We choose however to make
do with what we have that is attributed to him.
The entities stood within the globe for the testimonies say they were within a
light.
What we have here is a globe of light that was high up in the air. The light
light up the gable by reflection. The globe itself was above and around the
gable meaning the globe of light appeared so high up that part of it
semi-obscured the top of the gable and the rest shone above.
It is said that some of the witnesses saw the vision close up and one even tried
to touch it as it stood on top of the long grass. Nobody seems to wonder why the
grass was talked about as very erect when it is alleged that the wind came from
the south up against the gable and helped the torrential rain batter it without
mercy. The claim that the apparition was lower down than Walsh's testimony would
indicate does not hold water!
Interestingly, Patrick Hill stated the following in 1879, "When we, running
southwest, came so far from the village that on our turning the gable came in
view, we immediately beheld the lights, a clear, white light, covering most of
the gable, from the ground up to the window and higher. It was a kind of
changing bright light, going sometimes up high and again not so high."
This contradicts Walsh - the only thing that agrees with Walsh is that the light
did go up high. Even then there is an inconsistency. Walsh said the light stayed
high and Hill says it moved up and down. Walsh said the light was golden and
Hill said it was white.
Hill said, "I saw the figures and brightness ; the boy, John Curry, from behind
the wall, could not see them ; but I did ; and he asked me to lift him up till
he could see the grand babies, as he called the figures". The boy could not see
the images though they were high up. Patrick Hill was baptised in 1868 meaning
he was only 11. Hill would not have been very tall. His view would have been
handicapped - unless the vision was higher up than generally believed. A vision
near ground level is harder to see over a wall that's high for you.
Walsh was not too far away from the Church. It was half a mile. Nobody can say
he was too far away and made a mistake in judging the height. He was a farmer
who knew the landscape well.
His statement that the globe of light was high up makes
liars of those who said the images were just two feet above the ground. This
would be Patrick Hill, Mary Beirne and Bridget Trench. Judith Campbell said that
she went within a foot of the images: "I went within a foot of them."
The images being very high up would mean that Bridget Trench did not try to
touch Mary's feet. It would mean that Patrick Hill did not see as much detail as
he pretended to. It would eliminate all the evidence for a miracle. The
testimony of those three is the greatest block to attempting a natural
explanation.
Without it a natural explanation such as a magic lantern
would suffice.
The vision being high up and out of reach accounts for
the following information.
It would explain why the visionaries were standing far away from the vision.
They were at the ditch leaning on the wall next the schoolhouse to look at the
vision. The school house can be seen below. They stood where the wall meets the
schoolhouse gable. Patrick Hill's testimony tells us that. Mary McLoughlin said
she stayed at the ditch near the school house: "at the time I was outside the
ditch and to the south-west of the schoolhouse near the road, about thirty yards
or so from the church ; I leaned across the wall in order to see, as well as I
could, the whole scene". Dominick Beirne also said that they gathered around the
wall. You stand some distance away if figures are high up. If they are nearly
ground level you go closer and you stay close.
They stood at an angle to the gable. It was as if the
vision was not clear unless they stood at that angle. You would have expected
them to stand between the wall and the gable facing the gable directly. Some
would say that though they didn't admit it, they stood where they stood because
standing at the more natural spot meant the image was being obscured by their
bodies. This would happen if the projector was hidden in the wall and they were
stepping in front of it.
The position they stood at is very strange. It is stranger though if the images
were nearer the ground. It makes a little more sense if the images were higher
up. If images are high up and out of reach you feel little inclination to go
close or to look at them directly and not at an angle.
The picture at the top shows the position of the globe as Walsh saw it. We can
still accept all the witness accounts and hold that the altar and the lamb were
just below the window sill. All we contest is the three who said the vision was
near the ground.
Walsh says he saw the gable in his testimony. "I saw a very bright light on the
southern gable-end of the chapel ; it appeared to be a large globe of golden
light ; I never saw, I thought, so brilliant a light before; it appeared high up
in the air above and around the chapel gable." People who say he saw the chapel
from the side and that was why the light seemed high up are fantasists. This is
a lie they tell in the hope of making out that he saw the sight from the side
and didn't see the gable directly so that they can make the excuse that from his
standpoint the light looked high up. He saw it from a half a mile away. He
should have seen the images if they were plain. Significantly, he didn't. This
backs up Patrick Beirne who described them as like something cast by moonlight.
That wouldn't be very visible from beyond a certain distance.
It is odd that if the light was so bright that he didn't get closer to
investigate. A half a mile isn't a long distance. Was he misremembering?
According to Patrick Hill, "When we, running southwest, came so far from the
village that on our turning the gable came in view, we immediately beheld the
lights, a clear, white light". Though he was running in a direction that gave
him a view of the gable it seems he saw nothing until he got closer. This too
helps back up Beirne. The light was like moonlight. It was white too. It shows
that Walsh was wrong to say the light was as brilliant as he claimed.
The vision being high up explains problems such as these better. Some witnesses
saying there was a cross and others saying there was definitely no cross. Hill
saying there was angels going around the altar while Mary Beirne said it was
just flashing lights. Why Trench wasn't sure that the thing Mary wore on her
head was a crown.
Patrick Beirne and Mary Beirne said in the 1930's that the vision was not far
about the ground. Patrick said, "I saw three figures on the gable surrounded by
a wonderful light. They appeared to be something like shadows or reflections
cast on a wall on a moon-light night" (page 53, The Apparition at Knock). If
that is not confirmation that some of the witnesses were making the vision sound
more impressive than what it really was and that it was caused by a magic
lantern then what is? Patrick Beirne's 1879 testimony was glossed over by the
priest or priests who wrote it down for him. " I saw the figures clearly, fully,
and distinctly — the Blessed Virgin, St. Joseph, and that of a bishop, said to
be St. John the Evangelist. Young Beirne then told what he saw regarding the
Vision, just as it has been described already by several persons who were
present." Very suspicious! This is clearly an attempt to paper over indications
that the young lad saw limelight images. Patrick Beirne caused problems for the
Church as he once stopped going to Mass. Perhaps the evidence of human
gullibility in relation to religion was too much for him!
Patrick Hill in 1879 declared, "There was a line or dark mearing between the
figure of the Blessed Virgin and that of St. Joseph, so that one could know St.
Joseph, and the place where his figure appeared distinctly from that of the
Blessed Virgin and the spot where she stood." Hill claimed he saw the vision
close up and even saw Mary's irises. Here he slips up and shows that a shadow
was needed to make Mary and Joseph look separate. He says without it you would
not know it was St Joseph. This corroborates Patrick Beirne's assertion that the
images were as unclear as shadows cast on a wall by the moon. Hill then was
probably lying that he saw the vision close up. No other witness said he had
managed that. If the vision was high up the blackness was needed to make it
clearer.
There was a cross on top of the gable. Is it possible
that as the vision was so high up that the witnesses who said there was a cross
meant that cross? It would have been illuminated. Did the witnesses who said
they saw no cross mean that they didn't see a cross that was part of the vision?
Thanks to Mary Beirne, it was recorded in 1880 that the Archdeacon upon being
told of the vision said it was a reflection from a stained glass window. That
could indicate that he was told the light was high up and around the stained
glass window and he thought or pretended it caused an illusion.
On 8 November 1879, somebody claimed there was a light above the gable of the
chapel. The Archdeacon said this was exactly what Patrick Walsh saw on the 29
August. So the light was high up.
The vision being high up eradicates the following
indications that the vision was supernatural. The rain not falling on the
figures is one. It would look that way if one couldn't get close enough. And
some of the witnesses did see flashing lights like tiny stars. Sounds like rain
catching the light-source causing the apparition. The witnesses did not say that
no shadow could be cast over the apparition. This silence is used by believers
as an excuse for arguing, "If the vision was caused by a projector somebody or
something would have cast a shadow at some point. They would have got in the way
of the light." This is an unfair argument from silence. Maybe they did make a
shadow and we just don't know? But if there was no shadow, was that because the
vision and the light source were too high up to be interfered with?
Trench allegedly tried to feel the Virgin's feet but her hands just met thin
air. This did not happen if the vision was higher up the wall. Would the others
present have let her do that in case the Virgin would be offended or dirtied and
disappear? The real testimony taken from Trench as opposed to the version
fabricated by the Church goes,
LIVES IN THIS PLACE. ON THE EVE OF 21 AUGUST A PERSON SICK SENT FOR HER THAT SHE
MIGHT SEE HER. SHE CAME THAT EVENING TO THE CHURCH [SOMETHING ERASED]. SHE WAS
IN THE HOUSE OF THE SICK WOMAN. SHE CAME BY THE ROAD AND SAW GREAT LIGHT. SHE
ENTERED AT HER RIGHT HAND. SHE LEFT HER HAND ON THEM. SHE SAW ST JOSEPH AND THE
BVM AND ST JOHN AND THE ALTAR AND THE LAMB. THEY WERE NOT STANDING ON THE GROUND
BUT PROBABLY TWO FEET ABOVE THE GROUND.
How reliable was she though?
Patrick Hill's existing testimony goes, " I distinctly beheld the Blessed Virgin
Mary, lifesize, standing about two feet or so above the ground, clothed in white
robes, which were fastened at the neck." But in the absence of the original, can
we trust this version? A boy like Hill would say a small Virgin Mary was
lifesize if she was only about his height.
Mary Beirne said that the Virgin was life-size and the figures of Joseph and
John were smaller or lower down. Judith Campbell said the Virgin was higher than
the other two. Patrick Hill mentions only the Virgin being lifesize. Nobody else
comments on the size of the images. The Virgin was the centre of the apparition.
Life-size does not necessarily mean adult size.
Joseph and John may have been small.
It does not sound very plausible that we really have a supernatural vision here.
We conclude that the Knock apparition was a hoax and may have been placed high
up and caused by a projector put on the window of the Church.
BOOKS CONSULTED
Margaret Anna Cusack, The Nun of Kenmare, by Catherine
Ferguson CSJP, Gaelbooks, Co Down, 2008
Knock The Virgin's Apparition in Nineteenth Century Ireland, Eugene Hynes, Cork
University Press, Cork, 2008
Knock: Some New Evidence. The British and Irish Skeptic, Berman, David. Vol 1,
no. 6, November/December 1987
Knock 1879-1979, Rynne, Catherine. Dublin: Veritas Publications, 1979
Looking for a Miracle, Joe Nickell, Prometheus Books, New York, 1993
Our Lady of Knock, John MacPhilpin, Tom Neary, London: Catholic Truth Society,
1976
Our Lady of Knock. William D Coyne, New York: Catholic Book Publishing, 1948
The Gospel According to Woman, Karen Armstrong, Pan Books, London, 1987
"Papal Visit Resurrects Ireland's Knock Legend." The Freethinker (October 1979).
Reprinted in The British and Irish Skeptic 1, no. 1 January/February 1987
The Apparition at Knock, A Survey of Facts and Evidence, Fr Michael Walsh, St
Jarlath’s College, Tuam, Co Galway, 1959
The Apparition at Knock, The Ecumenical Dimension, Eoin de Bháldriathe, Data
Print, Athy, 2013
The Apparitions and Miracles at Knock, also Official Depositions of the
Eye-Witnesses. Tuam, Ireland, 1880. 2d ed. Dublin: M. H. Gill & Son, 1894.
Mother of Nations, Joan Ashton, Veritas, Dublin, 1988
The Book of Miracles, Stuart Gordon, Headline, London, 1996
The Cult of the Virgin Mary, Michael P Carroll, Princeton University Press, 1986
The Evidence for Visions of the Virgin Mary, Kevin McClure Aquarian Press,
Wellingborough, Northamptonshire, 1985
The Thunder of Justice, Ted and Maureen Flynn, MAXCOL, Vancouver, 1993
The Wonder of Guadalupe, Francis Johnson, Augustine, Devon, 1981
Why Statues Weep, Editors Wendy M Grossman and Christopher C French, The
Philosophy Press, London, 2010
The Gospel According to Woman, Karen Armstrong, Pan Books, London, 1987
Venerable Archdeacon Cavanagh, Liam Úa Cadhain, Knock Shrine Society, Roscommon
Herald, Boyle, Roscommon, Ireland, 2004
