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?