A Scientific Study by Dr. Frantisek Mracek about a Disputed Vicka’s Ecstasy
January 2003 - Dr. Frantisek Mracek, a doctor in natural sciences from Prague, sent to us an interesting scientific study about a disputed Vicka’s ecstasy from January 14, 1985.
We wish to put it at the disposition of all the friends of Medjugorje. (Text and English translation by www.verite.cz)
AUTHENTICITY OF VICKA´S ECSTASY DURING APPARITIONS IN MEDJUGORJE
In a great number of states a British television film „The Miraculous Apparitions“ made by journalist A.C. Clarke was shown. In this film its author tries to explain mysterious phenomena occuring during Marian apparitions as if it happened in natural way. Unfortunately these explanations are from point of view of physics, optics and medicine pretty untrustworthy. Let us think about case of Vicka´s ecstasy in Medjugorje.
The nature of this phenomenon as seen by author of the film is as follows: On 14th January 1985 in Medjugorje during the apparition of the Virgin Mary for four visionaries Jean Louis, a truck driver made experiment. With two fingers stretched out in a karate style he had attacked against eyes of visionary Vicka and according to his own words she reacted for this action during the apparition by dodging of her head and a batting of eyelid. After apparition she allegedly said that she had got frightened at the moment because she was afraid that tiny Jesus would fall down from the Virgin Mary’s arms.
Author of the film expresses assertion that this is not ecstasy but conscious reaction and further he expresses a suspicion that this interpretation Vicka tried to conceal by lying.
Objection: In danger the conscious reaction - batting of eyelids can occur when eye registered a change of movement or a change of size of an object by 1‘ (by one angular minute). For distance of 20 cm from eye it is change of 0.06 mm.
Since finger of Jean Louis‘s hand had been moving towards eye from distance of at least 40 cm, eye could register the feeling of threat at this distance in the situation of change of position by 0.12 mm. During movement of finger towards eye (graph A) such a small deflection in fingers‘ movement could happen very easily. Then the brain‘s command for closure of eyelids was given to eye muscles of eyelids at 25m/sec - a standard speed of the movement of information in nerves and i.e. when lenght of the nerve between brain and eyelids is around 10 cm then the command was given at speed of 1/250 sec.. This is one tenth of period between neighbouring pictures of video camera. That means that the beginning of eyelids’ closing in the case of conscious reaction should happen in the period between pictures no.0 and no.1. However, in reality the beginning of eyelids’ closing (graph B) occurred approximately 2 pictures later.
Why did this delay occur? For explanation let us consider graph A. On all four fields recording position of the finger around eyelids it is apparent that finger does not touch eyelids even though at the picture with number 3 closeness of finger’s tip to eyelids is around 8 mm. Nevertheless, it is necessary to realize that video camera records picture every 1/25 sec.. And when we connect points with various distance of finger from eyelids by curve (we will make the interpolation) we will find out that the nearest distance between finger and eye is before the picture with number 3. On the basis of interpolation we can even presume that the distance is zero, that means there occurred touch of fingers’ tips in the area of eyelids. That means batting can be provoked even by a sudden disruption of electromagnetic fields around eyelids’ muscles by finger’s tip. Of course, there are also existing other reasons why touch did occur.
Let us think about the movement of head. In connection with fingers’ movement to eye deflection of head by about 14 mm occurred. This movement happened approximately after 1/50 sec after the beginning of eyelids’ closing. This deflecting had been lasting during 4 pictures´ fields and then head was returning to the former position. If this movement of head had happened in connection with the feeling of endangerment, head would nevertheless have begun to deflect a little bit later than closing of eyelids had begun but time delay with regard to three times longer nerve route to muscles controlling the head would have been only around 1/80 sec., which is one third of the time between the record of neighbouring pictures’ fields. And therefore movement of head should happen in the period of record of picture with number 1 but in reality it happened 4 pictures´ fields later which excludes that movement was caused by reaction to endangerment.
The above mentioned discord is possible to explain in such way that contact touch really had happened and through fingers head got impulse and there occurred a deflection of about 14 mm. It was resilient bump whose reaction shows a certain delay. This supposition is also strenghtened by the fact that Vicka’s head - because bump had been lead to the left eye - turned moderately to the right.
Further, there is also important the fact that Vicka’s head returned after deflection of about 14 mm to the former position. The thing is that if movement of head had been a consequence of endangerment head would not have returned to the former position but it would have deflected far and away more. It means that muscles holding the head did not get from brain conscious command for turning head away as caused by the influence of endangerment, but through influence of their elasticity head was returned to the former position. Small deflection and return of head to the former position also show that it was not conscious reaction caused by feeling of endangerment.
Conclusion: From time depenedencies gained from video record and course of the event it is apparent that Vicka’s reaction is subconscious reaction which is also unequivocally confirmed by unchanged expression of face on all of the pictures´ fields and finally, too, Vicka’s proclamation saying that she did not notice this endangerment.
Presented explanation of Vicka’s reaction and also other phenonomena in the broadcast video film is based on naive reflections without any consideration of common physical and biophysical scientific knowledge no matter how small this consideration may be.
RNDr. František Mráček
František Mráček (born 12. 4. 1934) had finished the study at Faculty of Mathematics and Physics of the Charles University in Prague in subject The Theoretical Physics and achieved the degree RNDr. Further he graduated from the Czech Technical University in Prague in the specialization The Precise Mechanics and Optics and became mechanical engineer. The scientific degree CSc. he gained for many years´ research of the transmission of picture to cerebral centre via the depicting chain. With help of experiments he had described mathematically some of the dependences during the transformation of picture on the eye retina, which enabled to comprehend better the transmission of picture by means of human eye. He was granted more than 30 patents with worldwide priority. He had constructed new optical technologies which made possible the improvement of the quality of film, television, lighting and laser systems. From his youth he has been occupying himself with determinateness and free will of man and the influence of the physical effect on man.