Matthew's "most serious objection to Fatima" is that "there are lots of other cases where people look at the sun and report similar experiences to the ones the Fatima witnesses experienced." The problem with this objection is that Fatima has lots of evidentially significant features that these "other cases" lack. For instance, Fatima involved a high degree of convergence between the phenomenology of a large and diverse crowd of witnesses - including skeptical newsmen - with only a couple of outliers that are easily explained. By comparison, the first example of one of these "other cases" that Matthew cites in his article is a putative 'miracle' that happened in Necedah, Wisconsin in 1950. Matthew claims that the Necedah witnesses' testimony was "similarly convergent" as the Fatima witnesses. In reality, that couldn't be further from the truth: --According to the 8 October 1950 issue of the La Crosse Tribune, “most of the persons in attendance, however, noticed nothing extraordinary about the sun’s action” during the supposed 'miracle' of Necedah. --An 8 October 1950 issue of the Los Angeles Examiner reported that "**Several women among the thousands of visitors** jamming this village also **said they saw the sun whirl. Newsmen saw nothing unusual**" So, far from being a devastating blow to the credibility of the Miracle of the Sun, Matthew's first example of these"other cases" perfectly illustrates what should have happened if the Miracle of the Sun were a natural event -- the vast majority of witnesses, especially skeptical witnesses, reporting seeing nothing. Of course, that is not what happened that day -- as already noted, the vast majority of witnesses, including skeptics, reported highly convergent phenomenology. It’s also worth noting there was literally a statue of Our Lady of Fatima at the site of the Necedah apparitions and the August apparition explicitly made reference to Fatima, so perhaps it is not surprising that a minority of people reported a smattering of details that echoed reports from Fatima crowd. It also simply is not true that there was “agreement about the basic phenomenology of the event” that was even remotely comparable to the Fatima witnesses among the minority of witnesses that claimed to see anything at all. When I am less busy with school, I am planning on publishing a comparative analysis that will go through the rest of the examples that have been marshaled by Fatima skeptics - but, needless to say, they dont survive scrutiny either. I will also point out the glaring problems with Matthew's hasty dismissal of the photogrammetric evidence, distant witnesses, rapid drying, opthamological evidence, miracle cures, etc...