Eyes of Guadalupe Image Hold Pro-Family Message, Expert Says

A Peruvian expert who has been studying the image of Our Lady of Guadalupe in Mexico for 34 years, says the microscopic figures that appear in her eyes hold a powerful pro-life and pro-family message.

Jose Aste Tonsmann said the tiny images in the eyes include an entire Aztec family and are a sign from the Mother of God about the importance of life and the family at a time when both are under attack worldwide.

During a conference at the Theatrical and Social Cultural Institute in Lima, Tonsmann said a total of 13 figures can be seen in the eyes of Our Lady of Guadalupe.

The six figures that can be seen in area of the cornea are of an Indian who seated, an elderly man believed to be Bishop Juan de Zumarraga, his translator, Juan Gonzalez, St. Juan Diego, a black woman who may have been the bishop’s housekeeper and who was granted her freedom before his death, and a bearded man of European descent.

Tonsmann said the other seven figures that appear right in the center of Mary’s gaze appear to be “an Indian family.”

The young woman in center of the group looking down is the mother. At her side is the father who is wearing a hat and between them are their three children.

The other two figures appear to be an elderly couple and may be the grandparents. They are standing behind the others, and the elderly man is the only figure that appears just in the right eye.

Tonsmann said the diverse group of people that appear in Our Lady of Guadalupe’s eyes convey “a message against racism, something that is increasingly worse in today’s world.”

It is not a coincidence, he added, that only today’s technology has allowed the tiny images to.....

Ok, I looked through the first five links, and there is no “scientific validation” demonstrated, just the same repeated assertions that appear in all the usual articles on the subject. Some of those assertions flat out admit that these images are only visible with “digital enhancement”.

Now, I’ve worked with digital graphics for years, and you can find nearly anything that you want to find with enough digital enhancement. That makes it an inherently less than reliable method. So, if you want me to believe that what is asserted to be found with this technique has been “scientifically validated”, then you’d better offer some more evidence than a testimonial from a Catholic writer who is promoting that assertion.

How about an article by a scientist, published in a scientific journal, which attests to the validity of the assertion? If it’s been continually scientifically validated, then you should have no trouble producing something like that, right?

Studies conducted between 1751–2 and 1982
MC – in 1756 a prominent artist, Miguel Cabrera, published a report entitled “Maravilla Americana” containing the findings made by himself and six other painters in 1751 and 1752 from ocular and manual inspection.[24]
G – José Antonio Flores Gómez, an art restorer, discussed in a 2002 interview with the Mexican journal Proceso (magazine) certain technical issues relative to the tilma, on which he had worked in 1947 and 1973.[25]
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]

^ Cabrera, Miguel: “Maravilla Americana y conjunto de varias maravillas observadas con la direccíon de las reglas del arte de la pintura en la prodigiosa imagen de Nuestra Señora de Guadalupe, Mexico”, 1756, facs. ed. Mexico, 1977; summary in Brading, D.A.: “Mexican Phoenix: Our Lady of Guadalupe: Image and Tradition Across Five Centuries”, Cambridge University Press, 2001, pp. 169–172
^ Vera, Rodrigo: “un restaurador de la guadalupana expone detalles técnicos que desmitifican a la imagen”, Revista Proceso N° 1343, July 27, 2002, pp. 17–18, cf. [1]
^ Callahan, Philip: “The Tilma Under Infra-Red Radiation”, CARA Studies in Popular Devotion, Vol. II, Guadalupan Studies, No. III (March 1981, 45pp.), Washington, D.C.; cf. Leatham, Miguel (2001). “Indigenista Hermeneutics and the Historical Meaning of Our Lady of Guadalupe of Mexico”. Folklore Forum. Google Docs. pp. 34–5.
^ Vera, Rodrigo: “el análisis que ocultó el vaticano”, Revista Proceso N° 1333, May 18, 2002; cf. [2] and cf. idem, “manos humanas pintaron la guadalupana”, Revista Proceso N° 1332, May 11, 2002, cf. http://www.ecultura.gob.mx/patrimonio/index.php?lan=

Well, I could have cut and paste a section from Wikipedia and a non-working link myself, but thanks.

Now, we know that these supposed images in the eyes were only recently detected, with advances in digital imagery. Therefore, all of these studies you cite could not have anything relevant to say on this matter, since the latest was made in 1982, years before these images were detected. So, where are all the recent scientific studies that have continually validated this assertion?

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?

“plus the last two sources again, show imaging testing, and showing no fakes, nothing....”

Again, those two studies have nothing to do with the question of the images in the eyes, since they were done before the images were “discovered”. Still, why don’t we actually look at what those studies revealed, instead of just assuming?

“Summary conclusions (”contra” indicates a contrary finding)

(2) Ground, or Primer: R asserted (MC and PC contra) by ocular examination that the tilma was primed, though with primer “applied irregularly.” R does not clarify whether his observed “irregular” application entails that majorly the entire tilma was primed, or just certain areas – such as those areas of the tilma extrinsic to the image – where PC agrees had later additions. MC, alternatively, observed that the image had soaked through to the reverse of the tilma.[28]”

So, study R, the second study you cited, asserted from his analysis that the image was painted on top of a primer coat, though the primer appeared to be applied irregularly. Hmm that doesn’t sound like he found zero evidence of fakery does it?

“(4) Brush-work: R suggested (PC contra) there was some visible brushwork on the original image, but at best in only one minute area of the image (”her eyes, including the irises, have outlines, apparently applied by a brush”).”

Again, R, your second study, asserted signs of brushwork on the image, specifically in the area of the eyes, which is exactly the area that I am questioning.

“(7) Binding Medium: R provisionally identified the pigments and binding medium (distemper) as consistent with 16th c. methods of painting sargas (MC, PC contra for different reasons), but the color values and luminosity are exceptional.”

The R study also found pigments and binding medium consistent with human methods of painting common at the time that the tilma would have likely been painting, if it was a fake. Now, that certainly can not be claimed as finding no signs of fakery.

So, the studies that you cite yourself don’t even state the things that you claim that they state. Yet, I am just supposed to take you at your word that there are other, mysteriously unavailable studies that confirm the supposed images in the eyes? Sorry, but I am still skeptical.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.