The only conclusion jumping was from the prots.
Bullshit.
Catholic apologists, including you, have been jumping to conclusions themselves.
There was one single historian-archeologist who claimed that "burial vaults" were "common".
THAT one comment is what the alternative to the underground structure in question having not been previously a septic tank is based upon. One single comment! -- though one oft repeated, and repeated so much that many have indeed jumped to the conclusion that the matter has been fully settled. It has not.
Every single time the claim has been repeated, the trail leads back to the one single comment -- which as of yet is far from having been established as fact that such a purposed structure existed on that particular property, instead of that being possibility, but even then still not ruling out that a disused septic tank could have been utilized also, for the need to do so may have arisen.
People saying that it "has been established" (that it was a burial vault) using those type of words of description, are in fact "leaping to conclusions" with arguably less information than Corliss had for assuming the chamber had likely been at one time a sewage tank.
That word "common" is a stretch in this regard, according to other comments I ran across made by local Irish, in that those sort of structures were not exactly common -- but not entirely unheard of either (and thus a possibility as opposed to the structure being a septic tank).
If it eventually proves to have been that and that alone, then those who wish it to be that way can say "I told you so".
But for people here to be demanded that they provide some form of apology while being presently insulted, is a bit much.
It becomes fighting words.
Even the 'baptism' part of things is screwy.
The local priest provided the information by way of extrapolation.
There were a certain number of baptisms recorded for -- I *think* it was ten different facilities.
Dividing it up roughly equally, does bring the number into near enough range to then assume that all the children at the Tuam facility were baptized.
But why have the greater number, then need to divide by ten, unless perhaps the names as listed were not also designated as to where the baptisms actually took place, but instead all from that Diocese in that time frame were all on on list, with no included indication of which facility those who were baptized were from. That could be a reasonable explanation, but then again it still begs a few questions. There was no further explanation that I have seen, making me wish I was a bit nearer so that I could possibly ask some follow-up questions myself.
Turning back to burials;
There were burials uncovered from the 1800's at a different location on the property. That has been established through recent archeological work which actually handled those corpses directly.
Since those bodies dating from the "work house" days were not buried in what is either -- a purpose built burial vault --- or possibly a disused septic tank, that would lead a person to consider the structure (if burial "vault") was not present during the initial era of the facility.
There is also a more normal, conventional graveyard right across the road to the Northwest of the property.
No large communal "vaults" there that we know of are "common" to THAT graveyard.
The facility was used by the Irish Army for a short period also -- so THEY could possibly have added some underground structure(s).
We don't know that they didn't, any more than we or much of anyone else knows that they did -- but it is possible enough, and makes a bit more sense then the Bon Secours having initiated excavations on-site, then paid for brick/concrete work to have been done...when there was a graveyard a [literal] stone's throw distant.
How well have you checked primary resources? Did you know that there is an anecdotal account of there being small bodies found in the same area of the same property, a bit distant (maybe twenty yards or a bit more? something like that...) from the spot where the cover or lid from whatever it is -- septic tank or "burial vault" is?
I'm still waiting for the Catholic venom to subside before sharing further as to this other information.
So what's it going to be?
Will you concede that there has been a bit of jumping to conclusions on the part of Catholic apologists -- yes or no?
The info I have been sharing is factual enough, with more than enough comments here on this thread serving to further prove my point.
Will you allow yourself to be corrected, even if but partially?
If so... then I would be willing to go to the trouble of spending the possible hours it may take me to again find these extra tidbits of info pertaining to children's bodies, other than the ones seen under the lid or stone that was pried up back in '72 (or whenever that was , it may have been '75, but the year makes little actual difference).
Oh?
Kinda like the Galileo trial?
I already showed you how you and other Catholics jumped to conclusions yourselves -- but you just waved it all away with insults galore.
What was that you were saying in #359 again?
Oh, that's right. I just repeated it back to you...as did another..but you were not willing to apply to yourself the same you standards which you apply to others.
I have warned you previously that when or if I saw you going after people here on this forum, that I make you pay a price for your continuing error.
You replied "Go for it, don’t talk about, it just do it"
Ok.
Then, lets do this thing.