previous entry   /  newest   /  archive   /  next entry

Supposedly Touched by an Angel -- 12.24.08
Iím sure most of you have seen the story of the so-called ďangelĒ sighting at a North Carolina hospital, where a mother is claiming she saw an angel on a security monitor and then her daughter ďmiraculouslyĒ regained her health and went home three days later after being at death's door. Here is a picture of a picture of the so-called angel caught on a security monitor by the mother on her cell phone.

Let us examine this so-called angel with logic rather than with blindness. The ďfigureĒ is not three dimensional at all, but rather follows the lines of the doorway and the wall. It also has a rectangular shape to it, again following the lines of the doorway and wall. The reflection on the floor shows that the middle section isnít even illuminated. Cameras are not exactly like our eyes. They donít handle high contrast very well. Something that for us might not be so bright could look blasted on a camera monitor because of the high contrast between a bright object and a dark area. Since the entire hallway isnít darkened itís safe to say that the the camera is not adjusting for the high contrast. Bottom line, I turn to the concept of Occamís razor which states that there being two or more theories explaining phenomena, the simplest one that explains that phenomena should be accepted. In the case of this so-called ďangelĒ sighting one can either say that it was an angel or was light from a window, or room, hitting the wall. Which of these two theories is simpler? Do we believe that it was some supernatural thing on that video, or do we look at the shape of the thing in question and see that it clearly has a square shape like a window or a doorway?

I donít dispute the idea that angels might exist. What I am saying is why must that be the first conclusion that is reached when looking at this picture? The universe has constantly shown itself to be more wondrous and amazing than our puny concepts of how it works. To automatically call what is clearly an amorphous glob of light an angel is much more than a stretch, itís completely ludicrous. To say that after the blob appeared a patient miraculously recovered is even more of a stretch. Why would that one girl be worthy of being healed while the patient down the hall is dying at that very same moment? And why not heal her of all her ailments, all her problems? Why bring her back from the brink of death to have her live a life of continued sickness?

Whatever, Iím happy that the child is well and her family is happy. If they want to believe that a glob of light saved their child so be it. At the end of the day it doesnít matter either way.

End Communication

previous entry   /  newest   /  archive   /  next entry

american ecstasy   /  diaryland