then hit up those links above your comment showing the continual scientific validation of these images in her eyes.....
and then when you are done, you can, im sure, contact and show the oh-so-obvious to folks like you, the fakery, etc...of all of the research....
somehow, i think you will more likely continue to post here, with derogatory remarx, etc...its easier that way.
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?