reply to post by colbe
Is this the link you meant to post? Here
Thanks for that.
Still looks exactly like a painting to me. I don't understand the specialness of it though?
Sorry but I don't get how the so called experts at Kodak say it looks more like a colour photo than a painting.To me it just looks like a painting done in the style of the claimed time it comes from.Maybe it is a colour photo of an origit50 year old colour photo hadn't faded at all.
Twenty-two years ago, Aste decided to investigate the presence of other figures reflected in the Virgin's eyes and, in fact, found 12.
On July 31, John Paul II will canonize Indian Juan Diego, the witness of the Guadalupe apparitions, in Mexico.
When the human eye focuses, the objects it is looking at are reflected in its retina. "Right now I am reflected in your eye," Aste explained to an interviewer.
"According to whether the object is close or far, it will be reflected in a larger or smaller size in the ocular globe," he said. "And this is what happens with the eyes of the Virgin of Guadalupe. The image reflected in her two retinas is that of the moment when the Virgin left her imprint on Juan Diego's tilma."
Q: Can these figures be the work of humans?
Aste: No, for three reasons. In the first place, they are not visible to the human eye, except for one: that of the Spaniard, which is the largest. Nobody could have painted such tiny silhouettes.
In the second place, the origin of the pigments of these figures is unknown. The same is true of the Virgin's image. It is not painted, and no one yet knows how it was stamped on Juan Diego's tilma.
Q: And the third?
Aste: The three figures are reproduced in both eyes. What artist would do that? Moreover, their size varies from one eye to the other, according to how close the personage was to the Virgin's left or right eye.
Q: What process did you follow in your experiment?
Aste: First photographs are taken of the eyes. Then they are digitalized. They are read by the computer, enlarged and screened from the images.
Q: Who appears in the eyes?
Aste: There is a virtually naked servant; an elderly man -- Bishop Friar Juan de Zumárraga; a youth -- the interpreter; an Indian with a tilma -- Juan Diego; a black woman -- a slave; a bearded Spaniard; and, lastly, an Indian family including father, mother, three children and two more adults, who could be grandparents or uncles.
Q: How do you know that the other figures correspond to the slave, the interpreter, etc.?
Aste: There is evidence in history. The elderly man who appears in the Virgin's eyes looks very much like the paintings of that period of Bishop Zumárraga. As to the black slave, Zumárraga said in his will that he released her. We also know that she was called Maria. In the Indies Archives there is a record of the bishop's embarkation when he left for the New World.
Recently our findings were confirmed when the Spanish-language magazine Proceso reported the results of a secret study of the Image of Guadalupe. It had been conducted - secretly - in 1982 by art restoration expert José Sol Rosales. Rosales examined the cloth with a stereomicroscope and observed that the canvas appeared to be a mixture of linen and hemp or cactus fiber. It had been prepared with a brush coat of white primer (calcium sulfate), and the image was then rendered in distemper (i.e., paint consisting of pigment, water, and a binding medium). The artist used a “very limited palette,” the expert stated, consisting of black (from pine soot), white, blue, green, various earth colors ("tierras”), reds (including carmine), and gold. Rosales concluded that the image did not originate supernaturally but was instead the work of an artist who used the materials and methods of the sixteenth century (El Vaticano 2002).
It had been prepared with a brush coat of white primer (calcium sulfate), and the image was then rendered in distemper (i.e., paint consisting of pigment, water, and a binding medium). The artist used a “very limited palette,” the expert stated, consisting of black (from pine soot), white, blue, green, various earth colors ("tierras”), reds (including carmine), and gold. Rosales concluded that the image did not originate supernaturally but was instead the work of an artist who used the materials and methods of the sixteenth century (El Vaticano 2002).
In addition, new scholarship (e.g. Brading 2001) suggests that, while the image was painted not long after the Spanish conquest and was alleged to have miraculous powers, the pious legend of Mary’s appearance to Juan Diego may date from the following century. Some Catholic scholars, including the former curator of the basilica Monsignor Guillermo Schulemburg, even doubt the historical existence of Juan Diego. Schulemburg said the canonization of Juan Diego would be the “recognition of a cult” (Nickell 1997).
Visiting the Tilma is one of the things I'd love to be able to do at some time in my life.
I'll not be able to do that ... but I wish I could.
That being said, science has not been able to figure out how it got there.
People from 1500 couldn't pull off a prank that could baffle science like that.
It stands as a miracle to me unless it can be proven otherwise.
A true gift to humanity.