“When a wooden statue of Mary has been videotaped on many occasions having tears of human blood streaming down from her eyes and her right palm, when the statue was observed bleeding by a medical doctor for himself, and had the object cat scanned, and tested multiple ways and when he and others rule “no natural explanation for said phenomenon” --- and then when skeptics come back with it could be condensation, or I can show you how someone can rig a statue and have it exude liquid, or I have a hoax in Texas to show how screwy people are, or even when they say I do not believe it we just have not found the natural explanation for it yet --- when they refuse to believe it is supernatural for the lamest of explanations as the ones I just gave --- THAT is agenda driven in my estimation.”

>>Which wooden statue? Are you referring to here?

Who made the videotapes, under what conditions?

Which doctor had the object CAT scanned?

What exactly were the multiple other ways it was tested?

Did independent analysts repete the scanning/testing?

Did the analysts' qualifications provide confidence they'd be able to detect fraud, if present? (That last is critical—having a medical or science degree doesn't speak to the ability to detect fraud--having a degree in metallurgy won't be of any utility in figuring out how the Chinese Linking Rings or Cups and Balls tricks are done.) If someone who did possess a strong track record of detecting fraud--the Amazing Randi, for example--had examined the statue and declared it a genuine miracle I’d be more inclined to take that possibility seriously.

“They are doing all they can to avoid the obvious conclusions, because the obvious conclusions point to the supernatural, God, Jesus, and Mary.”

>>That leap you’re tatking from “We can’t figure it out” to “It must be magic!” is one of faith, and hardly obvious.

“(Or did I miss other obvious conclusions not mentioned above?)”

>>Yes, you did: the most obvious. “The cause of the statue appearing to bleed remains undetermined.”

“I am not claiming supernatural because I want it to be supernatural or because of my agenda --- I am claiming supernatural because the facts and sensible observations and those of outsiders say it is.”

>>Direct question: do you believe that David Copperfield actually can fly unaided? Observationally it’s not only just as much of a miracle as your bleeding statue but more so.

“The implausible (and that is being kind) explanations for what might have occurred there (such as mass hallucination) are agenda driven simply because they have no basis in probabilities --- they are ridiculous, and it is clear they do not want to believe and are doing whatever they can to try to maintain that position. “

>>Amusing that you find “It is unlikely the extraordinary events occurred as described, especially given the discrepancies in witnesses accounts” less plausible, more ridiculous, than “It all happened by magic at the direction of my invisible friend—well, my invisible friend’s mom, anyway”.