Catholic Saints

What can explain the documented powers of Catholic saints?  Sure it's easy to say every instance was made up, misrepresented, or lied about, but there's some problems.  First, these miracles violate the accepted laws of reality to such an extent that they go beyond superstition, rumor, mistaken physical properties or mere tricks.  Second, multiple witnesses who aren't members of the clergy attest to the same miracle.  Third, saints get rejected for faking miracles, so just making an exaggerated claim or rumor won't get you in the Catholic encyclopedia. 

It's one thing to lie about a person performing miracles, but it's another to have people see them performed so regularly and frequently that they are accepted as normal events by people who don't even believe in or support them.

Flying and levitation: Giuseppe Desa, Joseph of Cupertino, Teresa of Avila, Catherine of Siena, Hadewijch of Antwerp, Philip of Neri, Ignatius Loyola, Robert de Palentin, Dunstan, Joannicius, Charles of Mount Argus, Gemma Galgani, Maria de Agreda, Martín de Porres, Mariam Thresia, Girolamo Savonarola, Alphonsus Liguori, Archangela Girlani, Catherine of Siena, Christina von Stommeln, Edmund Rich, Francis of Paola, Francis Fasani, Francis Xavier, Gemma Galgani, Gerard Majella, Holos, Ignatius Loyola, John Bosco, Joseph of Cupertino, Ludgardis of Tongeren, Luke Thaumaturgus, Martin de Porres, Michael Garicoits, Miguel Pro, Peter Claver, Peter of Alcantara, Philip Neri, Teresa of Avila.

Remote viewing: Clare of Assisi.

Phasing through locked surfaces: Martín de Porres.

Invisibility: Joannicius.

Teleportation and Bilocation:  Alphonsus Liguori, Anthony of Padua, Gerard Majella, Charles of St. Andrew, Pio of Pietrelcina, Severus of Ravenna, Ambrose of Milan, Maria de Agreda, Martin de Porres, Cyril VI of Alexandria.

100 people say aliens abducted them:

OMG it's proof aliens are abducting people

This has better proof than aliens.

>>3
No, actually, it doesn't. Cite some "proof", then.

Just the fact that you say it HAS "proof" is *evidence* that you wouldn't know the Scientific Method if it slapped you in the face with its cock.

What can explain the documented powers of Catholic saints?  Sure it's easy to say every instance was made up, misrepresented, or lied about...
You just answered your own question.

...but there's some problems.
ORLY?

First, these miracles violate the accepted laws of reality to such an extent that they go beyond superstition, rumor, mistaken physical properties or mere tricks.
Thank you for defining the word "miracle" for us. How does claiming something that is impossible prevent it from being "made up, misrepresented or lied about"? Oh right, it doesn't.

"I raised Carlin from the dead, turned water into whisky, and flew to New Zealand by flapping my arms. You know it's true because those claims are impossible." What? No. Next.

Second, multiple witnesses who aren't members of the clergy attest to the same miracle.
Anecdotal evidence is not real evidence. Let alone anecdotes that may or may not have been fabricated over the centuries in any of countless Christian PR/FUD campaigns, as was popular then and still is today. Next.

See also:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anecdotal_evidence#Anecdotal_evidence_and_faulty_logic
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum

Third, saints get rejected for faking miracles, so just making an exaggerated claim or rumor won't get you in the Catholic encyclopedia.
So... "All those guys are frauds, but this guy is legit, the Catholics say so." That's the best you can come up with? Really?

UFOs are easily attributed to meteors and atmospheric phenomenon, and the guy who came up with the Roswell story misidentified a piece of mylar-like material.  Science can resolve these claims, and the lack of independent verification makes the case against UFOs stronger.  It makes less sense that the Catholic Saints have independent witness reports from irreligious people who all happen to not be keen enough to see strings or ropes in the process.     

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_of_Cupertino

>>5
the Catholic Saints have independent witness reports from irreligious people

Even properly documented eyewitness testimony is WORTHLESS as evidence. Period. The best you can say of it is that it can serve as a reason to investigate further.

The so-called witnesses here, though, are highly suspect at best. There isn't even sufficient evidence that the witnesses themselves actually existed, let alone that they claim to have witnessed such feats. All accounts come from biased, untrustworthy sources: church officials and scribes.

Look at the Wikipedia article you linked, for example. The only source is a single book written by Father Angelo Pastrovicchi. The article itself also quickly degenerates into a religious perspective.

Cite me one well documented, independently verified, trustworthy and unbiased eyewitness testimony, then we can talk about whether or not strings or ropes may have been involved. Until then, it's nothing more than religious propaganda. Good luck finding writings from someone without a conflict of interest (ie Religion). In 17th century Italy, anyone who wasn't Roman Catholic was asking for trouble: can you say, "Roman Inquisition"?