The Knock apparitions could have been paintings
On the night of the 21st of August 1879 the Virgin Mary flanked by St
Joseph and a bishop thought to be St John the Evangelist and an altar
with a lamb and cross on it allegedly appeared on the gable wall of the
Parish Church of Knock for a few hours. Fifteen people witnessed the
vision including a child of five (page 60, The Evidence for Visions of
the Virgin Mary) and stood watching it for two hours allegedly in
torrential rain.
LIKE A PICTURE?
Mary Beirne's July 1880 deposition states, " I beheld, all at once,
standing out from the gable, and rather to the west of it, three figures
which, on more attentive inspection, appeared to be that of the Blessed
Virgin, of St. Joseph, and St. John." This is a fabrication. What she
really testified to was simply, "I saw 3 figures on the west side of the
gable." The on is of utmost importance. The month and year is written on
the deposition foolscap.
Her testimony was not taken in October 1879 like that of some of the
others was. It is odd that the lady considered to be the main witness,
the central witness, was not chosen to be among one of the first people
interviewed by the commission. Elements of exaggeration always creep in
if the interview is left too long. Our memories are never completely
accurate recollections of events. Our memories are reconstructions of
our past lives. Surprisingly, her testimony as she gave it is sober and
tame and almost boring. She would have wanted to convince herself and
others that something more gripping happened. A testimony being tame
does not eliminate the possibility that it sounds better and more
persuasive and more miraculous than what actually happened.
She called them figures, images and statues. Confused wasn't she?
In that light, her claim in her testimony that she never saw figures
like them is spurious. They were nothing special.
Her alleged claim that "they stood a little distance out
from the gable wall" - this is not that reliable for she never went up close
enough. And she contradicted that in other statements. Worse, she never
indicated in the original testimony that the figures stood out. She spoke of
them as being on the gable wall.
She said she saw only a plain altar meaning she did not see a lamb and a cross.
Some of the others said they saw a lamb on the altar and a cross indicating that
imagination played a role.
The faces having a yellower white than any other part of the images all of which
were white indicates a fraud. There was a failed attempt to make the images look
more lifelike. And the hands were pure white when they should have been the same
colour as the face. The error with the colour indicates that the images were not
as clear as we are led to believe.
She testified that no rain fell on the grass at the gable or on the gable
itself. She gives no hint that this was a miracle. The natural interpretation is
that the rain was not falling in the direction of the gable. If she had seen it
as a miracle, it would have been seized upon by the priest interviewing her.
She contradicted herself in her original testimony by saying there was a
brilliant light and then by saying that it was only a bright kind of light.
Later she said that during Father Lennon's investigation, she was shown
projected images from a magic lantern in test to see if the result looked like
the apparition. She said they were trying to make pictures like what she saw but
they could not make them like the apparition. She admitted later in life that
the images were like they were painted on the wall - sounds like a possible
magic lantern to me!
Like Patrick her brother, she stated that the light around the vision was like
the soft silvery light of the moon.
Many suspected that it was caused by a magic lantern, a projector. Indeed in
1935, Liam Na Cadhain interviewed Mary Beirne then Mary O Connell and she
declared, "The light about the figures was not like any light I ever saw but
more like the soft silvery light of the moon" (page 50, The Apparition at
Knock). A soft light! This refutes the lying witnesses who swore the light was
very very bright. And it proves that it could have been the light that comes
from a magic lantern which would not be exceptionally bright. Though it is true
that she was testifying a long time after the vision, this would be a true
memory. People her age easily remember things they never did or things they
never seen. She was well aware of the danger of saying the light was dullish -
it was giving fuel to the sceptics and contradicting the lying witnesses who
said it was brighter than the noon-day sun.
In 1936, Mary Beirne stated that the vision looked like a painting when close
enough, "When we went near the wall, the figures seemed to go back to the wall,
as if painted on it. Then when we came back from the wall, they seemed to stand
out and come forward". Clearly, her testimony that the images seemed flat is the
most reliable as she noticed this the closer she got. What you see at a distance
is less convincing that what you see if you stand closer. She swore to this in
1936 on her deathbed for a Church investigation.
Patrick Hill let it slip that the images were on the gable not at it. He was a
bad liar when it came to his saying that the vision stood out from the wall.
"I went then up closer ; I saw everything distinctly. The figures were full and
round, as if they had a body and life ; they said nothing, but as we approached
they seemed to go back a little towards the gable". The as if and the seemed
indicate that he was uncertain that the images stood out from the wall.
He told the Daily Telegraph in 1880, that he was told that the images were on
the gable wall. "Oh, come up to the chapel, and see the Blessed Virgin against
the wall". That same year he told the Weekly News that he lifted a child up to
see the images on the gable.
It has been suggested that the images were created by an artist with luminous
paint. This has been rejected for the artist would have been caught at work for
it would have been time-consuming and would have had to clean the wall before
the morning. A stronger objection is that the heavy rain would have washed the
paint off and ruined the images.
It is possible that cut outs were put on the wall and a light was fixed to the
gable out of sight to shine on them.
We must remember that nobody saw the images coming or going. All the artist had
to do was stick them to the wall when nobody was about. It was easy to remove
them when everybody was out of the way. If he wanted rid of the people before he
could remove the images all he had to do was pick a night when he was sure it
would rain. He would have hoped that if the rain were heavy enough the witnesses
would have abandoned the tableau. Also, he knew that if there was a way to get
the light to go out the image would soon vanish causing them to disperse.
A magic lantern could easily have been used to create the lower bodies of the
images. The upper half of the bodies could have been mere paintings that the
lantern was shining on. More detail was necessary for the faces and the hands -
the upper parts. It is possible that the altar with the lamb and the cross was
really a box that was fastened temporarily to the wall and concealed the magic
lantern and mirrors required to make the image.
The Apparition at Knock rejects the idea that the images were painted using
luminous paint or phosphorus on canvas hung on the wall for at 300 yards they
were mistaken for statues which wouldn’t have happened. But we must remember
that if you saw strange shapes in vague bodily form at that distance in the
grounds of a Catholic Church you would take them for statues for that is what
you would expect. What you expect to see influences what you think you see. The
paint would have looked white or greenish in the daytime so the book is wrong to
say that the apparition being seen in daytime at that distance means it was not
a luminous painting. I’d say that four canvases were used and each one cut into
the shape of the thing represented. That would explain this. The mysterious
light was from a hidden lamp. This would have kept the phosphorus stable because
normally it would fade out in parts. The painting was done in such a way that it
looked real and detail could be seen. Something must have been erected to keep
the rain off the images for rain would ruin the phosphorus. The book debunks the
possibility of illusion but ignores the fact that these images painted by
phosphorus might have done so much and illusion and imagination did the rest.
The contradictions between the witnesses show that hallucination was at play to
some extent. A crude trick could have been played and the witnesses imagined the
rest, they could have imagined the things that make the vision seem convincing.
If a canvas was used, perhaps the magic lantern was behind it? In that case, the
lantern was just used not to project images at all but to brighten up images on
the canvas.
The witness who supposedly said the ground was miraculously dry below the
apparition would have wet hands. If you expect the ground to be dry and your
hands are wet then you could think the ground is dry. Perhaps a shelter that
wasn't seen was attached to the wall by the hoaxer to keep the phosphorous
figures dry? Or was a sheet of glass used and a light source used to project
images on to it or to light up images already on it? Did the glass protect the
ground from the rain?
The alleged HEAVY rain is hard to verify. The witnesses say little about it. Too
little. Patrick Beirne said there was no rain only drizzle. The rain against the
gable is a myth propagated to make out that the images would have been washed
away if they were painted.
FLAT AGAINST THE WALL?
Was the Vision flat against the gable wall?
There is no strong and certain testimony that the vision stood out from the
wall. A paltry three of the visionaries said that the figures were or seemed to
be out from the wall. But if you project a picture of a person on a wall and
pretend that it is a ghost you will find that your imagination does seem to
cause you to perceive that the image is not on the wall but in front of it.
According to the Church, Trench said, " I went in immediately to kiss, as I
thought, the feet of the Blessed Virgin ; but I felt nothing in the embrace but
the wall." She supposedly said the figures were full and round but this seems to
indicate that she touched the wall when she expected to touch feet that were out
from the wall. The images were flat against the wall. Her eyesight is suspect if
she said Mary had something on her head like a crown. She couldn't be definite.
Hill said in 1880 as reported by the Daily Telegraph that he was told to go to
the gable and see the images on it.
Hill said the images were out from the wall but went on the wall if you went too
close.
He also said, they were "full and round, as if they had a body and life". Note
the "as if" - he was not sure if they had body.
He told the Weekly News 1880 that he lifted John Curry up to see the images ON
the gable.
Catherine Murray told the Weekly News 1880 that she had "seen the three figures
on the gable."
Patrick Hill said that Brigid Trench said said the images went on the wall when
she got too close "they receded, she said, from her".
John Curry said Trench touched the picture (1937, New York Tribunal). The images
were then flat on the wall.
Mary Beirne said the figures stood out from the wall "they stood a little
distance out from the gable wall". She also said that the images seemed to
retreat into the wall when approached – maybe that was an illusion. When you are
far off a projected image it is easier to think it is three dimensional but when
you get close it is easier to see that it is on the wall. She added that she saw
attempts to recreate the vision using slides but there was no comparison (The
Apparition at Knock, page 50).
In 1880 she said to the Weekly News that she "thought they were a couple of feet
out from the gable, and then, when we [her and McLoughlin] went on, they seemed
to go back into the gable."
She stated in the 1930s that close up the images seemed painted on the wall (The
Apparition at Knock, page 62). "When we went near the wall, the figures seemed
to go back to the wall, as if painted on it. Then when we came back from the
wall, they seemed to stand out and come forward".
There was no need for the vision to turn into a painting when approached. Her
perception of the image as coming out from the wall when they moved away from it
is most likely to be inaccurate as she was at a distance from it.
Patrick Beirne said in the thirties that the vision" appeared to be something
like shadows or reflections cast on a wall on a moon-lit night. I approached
nearer the gable and passed my hand along the wall to find there was no material
substance there".
The vision was a flat shadowy thing.
Painting is a possibility. The magic lantern rumour could explain the light and
paintings explain the images.