Our Lady of Assuit Need Debunking

[shawnfrye]

Many people online claim there were supernatural lights at Assuit, Egypt in 2000. Looking at the video I linked, it seems like there are lights on top of/near a church with no known source. Some have put this forth as evidence for Christianity.

Here's the video that shows the lights I described.

From 2:03 to 2:25 there are intermittent flashes of light from unknown places

From 2:26 to 2:47 there is a bright light on the top left corner

From 2:48 to 4:08 there is a bright light near the cross which seems to move

Here's some pictures:

How would you explain this? What is the source of the lights? Are these photos/videos doctored?

 

[Mauro]

Well, most of the pictures are just of... lights in the LIZ. They could be anything, from the Moon to Jupiter to a plane and even to an apparition of the Virgin Mary, or maybe ET crafts or Athena having a quarrel with Ares... who can possibly know. I'd stick to things proven to be real and eliminate the last three possibilities.

Picture #2 looks to me like a window reflection of some light fixture inside the room.

You might be interested also in Our Lady of Zeitoun and Our Lady of Warraq, and undoubtely many more I guess.

Desire to believe + someone starting a rumour = UFO apparitions flaps.

 

[Fritzkquzerk]

They actually remind me of fireworks.

 

[Giddierone]

There are several alleged mass sightings of an apparition of the Virgin Mary in Egypt (as well as other place in the world). For example 2 April 1968 over a Coptic Orthodox church of Zeitoun, (see https://skeptoid.com/episodes/766). Then a couple more (17 Aug 2000, March 2004) over Saint Mark's Coptic Christian Church in Assuit.

Legend has it they've been happening "for centuries"...

Assuit has a specific significance for Coptic Christians in Egypt because it's apparently where the "holy family" sheltered when hiding from Herod's soldiers.

However, despite the claim that thousands have seen it the apparition all the evidence is as poor or worse than the video posted in this thread.

Later cases just look like spotlights on low cloud, camera flashes, "exceptionally large pigeons" caught in those lights, or could even be lights deliberately shone from the nearby hills.

In a 90% muslim community novel evangelising methods by a minority might be employed...

Other newspaper stories were suitably pun heavy.

 

[John J.]

(The place is probably Asyut, Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asyut), less often written as Assiut).

The video and audio are poor quality, maybe filmed from the screen of another device- there's maybe a hint of fingers at the right side of the screen at approx. 16:40.

From approx. 17: 44, there's a BBC news report from Caroline Hawley, a BBC correspondent who covered Egypt, Libya and Sudan from 1999 (BBC profile http://news.bbc.co.uk/aboutbbcnews/hi/profiles/newsid_3787000/3787599.stm); the original must have been in much better quality.

The story is in the context of claimed Marian apparitions (Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marian_apparition) but we don't see any Marian apparitions, so we are left with various lights and brief illuminations of the church. The latter might be due to entirely mundane sources, e.g. spotlights being flashed on and off, perhaps powerful photography flashes.

The perhaps out-of-focus "globular" light from approx. 1:29 could be almost anything. We don't see any part of the Church (or anything else) in this sequence.
The light very near the cross from about 2:47 might be the Moon; I'd guess there are others here who would be able to establish if this might be a possibility (if the camera time and date are correct).

If accurate, the dates at the lower left of the screen are from 21 August 2000 to 10 September 2000; plenty of time to arrange for good quality filming from a number of different viewpoints. But this doesn't appear to have happened.

If this (low quality) footage has been filmed from the screen of another device, the opportunities for hoaxing might be greater- manipulation of imagery on the first device might be harder to detect; the editing might allow inclusion of non-authentic footage though my feeling is perhaps this didn't happen- but nevertheless all lights seen probably have prosaic explanations.

The burden of proof is on claimants to demonstrate that these lights are probably not of mundane origin.

 

[shawnfrye]

(The place is probably Asyut, Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asyut), less often written as Assiut).

The video and audio are poor quality, maybe filmed from the screen of another device- there's maybe a hint of fingers at the right side of the screen at approx. 16:40.
View attachment 92129

From approx. 17: 44, there's a BBC news report from Caroline Hawley, a BBC correspondent who covered Egypt, Libya and Sudan from 1999 (BBC profile http://news.bbc.co.uk/aboutbbcnews/hi/profiles/newsid_3787000/3787599.stm); the original must have been in much better quality.

The story is in the context of claimed Marian apparitions (Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marian_apparition) but we don't see any Marian apparitions, so we are left with various lights and brief illuminations of the church. The latter might be due to entirely mundane sources, e.g. spotlights being flashed on and off, perhaps powerful photography flashes.

The perhaps out-of-focus "globular" light from approx. 1:29 could be almost anything. We don't see any part of the Church (or anything else) in this sequence.
The light very near the cross from about 2:47 might be the Moon; I'd guess there are others here who would be able to establish if this might be a possibility (if the camera time and date are correct).
View attachment 92128

If accurate, the dates at the lower left of the screen are from 21 August 2000 to 10 September 2000; plenty of time to arrange for good quality filming from a number of different viewpoints. But this doesn't appear to have happened.

If this (low quality) footage has been filmed from the screen of another device, the opportunities for hoaxing might be greater- manipulation of imagery on the first device might be harder to detect; the editing might allow inclusion of non-authentic footage though my feeling is perhaps this didn't happen- but nevertheless all lights seen probably have prosaic explanations.

The burden of proof is on claimants to demonstrate that these lights are probably not of mundane origin.

I don't think the light at 2:47 could be the moon.

Here's the light at 2:47:

At 4:05, you can see the time is 2:54, 28 minutes later:

Surely if it were the moon, it would've moved more than that.

I think a hoax might be the most likely explanation. I invite anyone who's qualified on video editing/practical effects to speak on this.

 

[Giddierone]

Here's the location: https://maps.app.goo.gl/y29Z2vTxbEEUpENo8
The time on the video might be off, but an hour earlier the moon was low and pretty much where the bright light is in the video.

Another clip from a different date:

looks like another good match.

 

[NorCal Dave]

I think a hoax might be the most likely explanation. I invite anyone who's qualified on video editing/practical effects to speak on this.

To paraphrase an often used quote in Skeptical circles: "Be sure there is some sort of video hoax to bother with, before asking experts to explain it".

As note by @John J. this looks like it was filmed off a screen and is claimed to be a compilation of events. One can make out the tracking lines at the bottom of the screen:

IF that's the case, then it could just be a collection of edited together events that were then re-recorded off a screen. So, during the flashing lights sequence at around 02:00-02:15, it looks like the crowd in the lower right changes with the different flashes. Possibly indicating it's a series of different lighting schemes for an event, that was then edited to make it look like it was flashing much faster than it really was.

At 12:49, there is clearly some big ass lights set up, so it's not unreasonable to suggest there were other lights as well:

I don't think the light at 2:47 could be the moon.

Here's the light at 2:47:

At 4:05, you can see the time is 2:54, 28 minutes later:

But if the time and date is on the device recording something off a screen, it doesn't reflect the time or date of the actual event on the screen.

It's all crap video of very poor quality and very difficult to tell what's going on in many of the scenes. Thought it does appear light shows of some kind may have been part of the various gatherings.

This footage seems to get passed around as here is some of it again from a few years ago:

 

[Giddierone]

edited to make it look like it was flashing much faster than it really was.

The time code goes from 3:42 to 3:57 in a couple of seconds. It's clearly been edited. They're just turning the uplights that illuminate the towers on and off.
And this "capture" might be from the same moment as the newspaper clipping above. Just light on the lens.

 

[shawnfrye]

Here's the location: https://maps.app.goo.gl/y29Z2vTxbEEUpENo8
The time on the video might be off, but an hour earlier the moon was low and pretty much where the bright light is in the video.

View attachment 92138View attachment 92139View attachment 92137

Another clip from a different date:
View attachment 92141
looks like another good match.
View attachment 92142

What about this screenshot?

If it was the moon, shouldn't it be in a completely different location 28 minutes later like in this picture?

Also, the light seems to move between 3:19 and 4:00. Click this to see video.

 

[shawnfrye]

To paraphrase an often used quote in Skeptical circles: "Be sure there is some sort of video hoax to bother with, before asking experts to explain it".

As note by @John J. this looks like it was filmed off a screen and is claimed to be a compilation of events. One can make out the tracking lines at the bottom of the screen:

View attachment 92135

IF that's the case, then it could just be a collection of edited together events that were then re-recorded off a screen. So, during the flashing lights sequence at around 02:00-02:15, it looks like the crowd in the lower right changes with the different flashes. Possibly indicating it's a series of different lighting schemes for an event, that was then edited to make it look like it was flashing much faster than it really was.

At 12:49, there is clearly some big ass lights set up, so it's not unreasonable to suggest there were other lights as well:

View attachment 92136



But if the time and date is on the device recording something off a screen, it doesn't reflect the time or date of the actual event on the screen.

It's all crap video of very poor quality and very difficult to tell what's going on in many of the scenes. Thought it does appear light shows of some kind may have been part of the various gatherings.

This footage seems to get passed around as here is some of it again from a few years ago:

View attachment 92140

At 2:59, the camera wobbles, and to me it doesn't look like it's filmed on a screen. Click this to see video.

Here's a screenshot:

 

[NorCal Dave]

The time code goes from 3:42 to 3:57 in a couple of seconds. It's clearly been edited. They're just turning the uplights that illuminate the towers on and off.
And this "capture" might be from the same moment as the newspaper clipping above. Just light on the lens.
View attachment 92144

The other video I found with a lot of this same footage is a lot shorter than the OP video and at least explains what's going on. It includes the same photo you posted here.

The central claim seems to be, there are no illumination lights for the towers or the church as a whole. The flashing lights we see are miraculous and not just a bunch of lights being turned on and off.

This was all 26 years ago and seems to exist only as these same bits of video. It appears there may have been large groups of people "witnessing" this, but the claim is they didn't witness any means of illumination. Hard to say this many years on. This was at the height of Mubarak's control and at least some sources claim Assuid was often closed off due to conflicts between militant Islamists and the Christian Coptic churches in the area.

It seems plausible that there may have been some sort of event back in 2000 that included some sort of light show that decades later has been reinterprets as miraculous lights, as evidenced by some old fuzzy videos.

YouTube explaining what supposedly happened with much of the same footage:


Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=79toytoAGc0

 

[Giddierone]

If it was the moon, shouldn't it be in a completely different location 28 minutes later like in this picture?

The moon is in a different location 28 mins later. Higher in the sky at 2:26 and closer to the horizon at 2:54 You can check this yourself using Stellarium. It is the moon. It is filmed (poorly) from the rooftops of the adjacent buildings.

 

[shawnfrye]

The moon is in a different location 28 mins later. Higher in the sky at 2:26 and closer to the horizon at 2:54 You can check this yourself using Stellarium. It is the moon. It is filmed (poorly) from the rooftops of the adjacent buildings. View attachment 92160View attachment 92161

Oh I see it now.

I'm still confused as to why it seems like the light moves a noticeable distance within seconds. See 3:35 to 3:58. I mean it looks like it's in front of the cross.

Before:

After:

Is this some sort of camera trick?

Click here for video

 

[NorCal Dave]

Is this some sort of camera trick?

Who knows. Just looking at some of this, it appears there were lots of lights in and around these churches back in 2000 or possibly earlier. Most of it really looks like lights being turned on and off that illuminate the church, or maybe behind the church. Some of this was filmed at some point, maybe in 2000. What was recorded has now been mashed together with other recordings and a narrative suggesting there are no lights at this church, so it's all miraculous.

Looks to me like big lights that illuminate the church. Possibly there were turned on and off for visual effect during various events. There is a video from the pyramid scene in the James Bond film, The Spy Who Loved Me, from 1977 showing the use of lights going on and off for dramatic effects at Giza. Link Below. A common thing in Egypt and elsewhere.

If you want to try to debunk this, I would think the trick would be to find videos of the churches prior to 2000 where these lights are in use. Of course it's possible these lights were installed in or around 2000, so when they were first used, it created the effect we see which in latter years was interpreted as miraculous.

Lights at Giza:


Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n1gQ-1zEljg

 

[Giddierone]

it seems like the light moves a noticeable distance within seconds. See 3:35 to 3:58

Those are minutes, not seconds. Near the start of the video there's an edit at 2:03 and that jumps to 2:25 and the moon is in a lower position — where it should be as it crosses the sky.

There's absolutely nothing remarkable or paranormal about this case. Cram thousands of people into a tight space for hours and flicker some lights on the church towers and there's a likelihood that some will believe its an apparition of the Virgin Mary — it's virtually tradition.

Most of it really looks like lights being turned on and off that illuminate the church

Yeap. There are literally fluorescent bulb fixtures on the roof...

 

[shawnfrye]

Those are minutes, not seconds. Near the start of the video there's an edit at 2:03 and that jumps to 2:25 and the moon is in a lower position — where it should be as it crosses the sky.

There's absolutely nothing remarkable or paranormal about this case. Cram thousands of people into a tight space for hours and flicker some lights on the church towers and there's a likelihood that some will believe its an apparition of the Virgin Mary — it's virtually tradition.


Yeap. There are literally fluorescent bulb fixtures on the roof...
View attachment 92165

When I say 3:35 to 3:58, I'm talking about the video time. It's 23 seconds. Even if it was minutes, how does it look like it's in front of the cross?

Before:

After:

 

[Ann K]

Even if it was minutes, how does it look like it's in front of the cross?

The moon's brightness overwhelms the camera sensor so the dark part of the cross disappears. Here's a picture of a sunset to illustrate that.

Bear in mind that with night-time photography, the aperture has to be wide open or else the picture looks all black. That exaggerates the light areas that you see.

 

[shawnfrye]

The moon's brightness overwhelms the camera sensor so the dark part of the cross disappears. Here's a picture of a sunset to illustrate that.
View attachment 92168
Bear in mind that with night-time photography, the aperture has to be wide open or else the picture looks all black. That exaggerates the light areas that you see.

Thank you so much for this. I'm still confused as to why it looks like it's behind the cross and then, after some time, looks like it's in front. Shouldn't it just always look the same? Shouldn't it always look like it's in front?

 

[Landru]

Thank you so much for this. I'm still confused as to why it looks like it's behind the cross and then, after some time, looks like it's in front. Shouldn't it just always look the same? Shouldn't it always look like it's in front?

Camera settings change due to ambient light changes in the shot. If the camera perceives that the over light in the shot has dimmed the changes could cause some local sources of light to bleed over. As probably happened here.

 

[JMartJr]

Thank you so much for this. I'm still confused as to why it looks like it's behind the cross and then, after some time, looks like it's in front. Shouldn't it just always look the same? Shouldn't it always look like it's in front?

To me, it looks like the light is not "touching" the cross in the first picture, it is inside the angle formed by the cross so you have an unobstructed view, though the glare impinges a bit. In the second pic, the light is closer to the horizontal arm of the cross, on the edge of being occluded, and the glare wipes out part of the arm of the cross in that one.

Remember that the glare is bigger in the photo than the actual light.

Edit... typos fixed

 

[shawnfrye]

Camera settings change due to ambient light changes in the shot. If the camera perceives that the over light in the shot has dimmed the changes could cause some local sources of light to bleed over. As probably happened here.

Thank you.

How would you explain photos like this:

These are flashes of light with no apparent source.

 

[John J.]

...how does it look like it's in front of the cross?

It's a (relatively) bright light source partly behind, but not occluded by, a narrow object.

Thank you so much for this. I'm still confused as to why it looks like it's behind the cross and then, after some time, looks like it's in front. Shouldn't it just always look the same? Shouldn't it always look like it's in front?

No, because it isn't in front.

This detail of a picture shows the sun behind boat's masts. It is not in front of the masts.

In your post, one of the pictures shows the right horizontal arm of the cross looking slenderer than we know that it is.
This is because of a light source (I suspect the Moon) behind it, not in front of it.

(Edited to add, post originally continued "Think of the aliens as they emerge from the spaceship in Close Encounters..." along with a still from that movie, but it was a really poor example of the point I was trying to make).

 

[John J.]

These are flashes of light with no apparent source.

The photo/ footage appears to have been taken from an elevated position. A bright light behind the church shining toward the camera, possibly on another building some distance away, might generate this effect.

In some claims of Marian apparitions, it is possible some less than saintly humans have felt the need to encourage believers.

Edited to add, with extraordinary claims, the burden of proof is on claimants to demonstrate that what is claimed/ shown could not be/ is very unlikely to be caused by something mundane (or not extraordinary). I don't think this has been demonstrated in this video.

 

[FatPhil]

These are flashes of light with no apparent source.

There appears to be a source of the light to me. (It's the bright thing that's causing all the glare.)
What makes you think that that - to me obvious - source of light isn't a source of light? You may presume when forming your response that I know about physics, including optics, reasonably well.

 

[shawnfrye]

There appears to be a source of the light to me. (It's the bright thing that's causing all the glare.)
What makes you think that that - to me obvious - source of light isn't a source of light? You may presume when forming your response that I know about physics, including optics, reasonably well.

How would you account for this?

Before:

After:

Where do you think the light could be to produce this effect?

 

[John J.]

Where do you think the light could be to produce this effect?

First picture: a lightsource In front of the church.
Second picture: A bright light possibly behind the church, or possibly shining from a window in the right side of the dome which the "glare" area overlaps.

Pictures/ footage of the church or parts of the church being illuminated from various angles are only interesting if we know there are no bright lightsources of understandable origin nearby. We have absolutely no evidence that this was ruled out, or that anyone took any measures to prevent this at the time.

Is it more likely someone, probably a number of people, had access to spotlights/ lighting banks or other bright light sources nearby, or that the illumination is caused by an unexplained phenomenon or divine intervention?

 

[shawnfrye]

First picture: a lightsource In front of the church.
Second picture: A bright light possibly behind the church, or possibly shining from a window in the right side of the dome which the "glare" area overlaps.

Pictures/ footage of the church or parts of the church being illuminated from various angles are only interesting if we know there are no bright lightsources of understandable origin nearby. We have absolutely no evidence that this was ruled out, or that anyone took any measures to prevent this at the time.

Is it more likely someone, probably a number of people, had access to spotlights/ lighting banks or other bright light sources nearby, or that the illumination is caused by an unexplained phenomenon or divine intervention?

But in the before and after, you can see that there's no source of light.

There doesn't seem to be anything that can produce the light.