oh im sorry, i havent received my monthly subscription to Our Lady of Guadualupe Peer Reviews Only magazine...
seriously?
wikipedia or not, they are four studies done over the years showing no signs of fakery....
so far, on your side, you have produced zero evidence scientifcally, that it is a fake of any sort...nice try though...
plus the last two sources again, show imaging testing, and showing no fakes, nothing....
show me the science that showed it to be faked?
again, ive provided science sources, you have provided nothing...
PC – in 1979 Philip Callahan, biophysicist and USDA entomologist, specializing in Infrared imaging, took numerous infrared photographs of the front of the tilma. His findings, with photographs, were published in 1981.[26]
R – “Proceso” also published in 2002 an interview with José Sol Rosales, formerly director of the Center for the Conservation and Listing of Heritage Artifacts (Patrimonio Artístico Mueble) of the National Institute of Fine Arts (INBA) in México City. This interview was interspersed with extracts from a report R had written in 1982 of the findings he had made during his inspection of the tilma that year using raking and UV light, and – at low magnification – a stereo microscope of the type used for surgery.[27]
“oh im sorry, i havent received my monthly subscription to Our Lady of Guadualupe Peer Reviews Only magazine...
seriously?”
You’re the one who claimed that the images in the eyes, which I am skeptical about, have been continually scientifically validated. I’m sorry if I assumed that you said that because you knew it to be true, having seen such scientific studies, and not just repeating other peoples’ claims without verifying them yourself.
“wikipedia or not, they are four studies done over the years showing no signs of fakery....”
Well, now you are moving the goalposts. I never said a word on this thread about the tilma being a fake. I only said that I thought the people claiming to see the images were displaying apophenia, seeing things that they wanted to see in what was essentially random noise. This is a well known phenomenon that has nothing to do with fakery, since it is completely unintentional.
The studies that you cite have absolutely nothing to do with this question. I can say that with certainty, not even having bothered to read them, since the images in the eyes were first “discovered” in the 90’s, and your latest study was conducted in the early 80’s. So, you have still produced not a single study that actually speaks to the question at hand.
“so far, on your side, you have produced zero evidence scientifcally, that it is a fake of any sort...nice try though...”
I don’t need to produce any evidence. I am not making any extraordinary assertion that requires evidence to back it up. The people claiming that there are miraculous images in the eyes are the ones making the extraordinary assertion, so it is they who you should be asking to produce evidence. I’ve searched for it myself and could not find it, and apparently, you have not been able to find such evidence either. So, why should we keep believing the claim when neither of us can find any evidence to support it?