[Bellflower]

But even if they were frescoes covered with plaster, is a very strange fact that they are NOT visible to the naked eye, yet are captured in the camera lens! Then we have a paradox, perhaps it should be investigated ...

This is the most unusual thing about the crosses showing up. Just why do they show up on film better than with the naked eye is a very good question.

[annalex]

Well, Shery a few posts up says she saw the crosses, I presume with a naked eye, back in 1989.

It is possible to see more in a photograph in principle as a lens can have a higher resolution than an even healthy eye. I imagine so, — I don’t know that for a fact. Surely a telescopic lens can reveal more.