If I recall correctly, the female figure was not on the Cross, and not in the place of Jesus, but off to one side. You kept insisting that the female figure was on the Cross and represented Catholic doctrine. Would you now admit that neither is the case?
The other photo, claimed by the antiCatholic site wayoflife.com (a non Christian site) to be from the Santa Maria Maggiore basilica, is not supported by the first couple of dozen pages of Google Images. Do you have a reliable source which does not lie about Christ and Christianity that would confirm the accuracy of this photo?
The viewer can look at the shadows cast to determine where the statues are. Shadows cast on the cross and shadows from the cross cast on Jesus's image. I think the viewer can easily judge exactly where they are positioned. IOW's Right where you see them.
No, you recall incorrectly. The figure on Mary was on the cross. As Alamo-girl suggested, anyone can see the photo in google images by typing in Mary on cross Nicaragua photography by Ivan.
These points were asserted, proven and settled weeks ago. But that doesn't stop RC apologists from denying what transpired and reasserting a false pretense of reality, as you have done here...
The other photo, claimed by the antiCatholic site wayoflife.com (a non Christian site) to be from the Santa Maria Maggiore basilica
WayofLife.org is not an "anti-Catholic website;" it is a Christian website. And there is no reason to doubt the photo's authenticity other than wishful thinking.
There is another statue of Mary on the cross at the Church of the Mother of God of Polish Martyrs in Warsaw, but I haven't looked for a photo yet.
And as I recall. Gamecock found a half-dozen representations of "Mary on the cross" from various RC websites. If Gamecock's around maybe he could post them again...and again.