Debate: DO YOU BELIEVE IN GOD
Side: yes, I believe in god

Callaghan said no word about it no matter that he used bright light and microscope..Thats because Callahan was not the scientist behind it. It was done by Dr. Jose Aste Tonsmann.Then in 1929 and 1951 photographers found a figure reflected in the Virgin's eyes; upon inspection they said that the reflection was tripled in what is called the Purkinje effect, commonly found in human eyes.[54] An ophthalmologist, Dr. Jose Aste Tonsmann, later enlarged an image of the Virgin's eyes by 2500x and claimed to have found not only the aforementioned single figure, but images of all the witnesses present when the tilma was first revealed before Zumárraga in 1531, plus a small family group of mother, father, and a group of children, in the center of the Virgin's eyes, fourteen people in allIt would glow under infra red, impossible to miss, why didn't he said a word?He did actually:>in 1979 Philip Callahan, (biophysicist, USDA entomologist, NASA consultant) specializing in infrared imaging, was allowed direct access to visually inspect, and photograph, the image. He took numerous infrared photographs of the front of the tilma. Taking notes that were later published, his assistant noted that the original art work was neither cracked nor flaked, while later additions (gold leaf, silver plating the moon) showed serious signs of wear, if not complete deterioration. Callahan could not explain the excellent state of preservation of the un-retouched areas of the image on the tilma, particularly the upper two-thirds of the image. His findings, with photographs, were published in 1981.>Dr. Philip Serna Callahan, who photographed the icon under infrared light, declared from his photographs that portions of the face, hands, robe, and mantle had been painted in one step, with no sketches or corrections and no visible brush strokesCallaghan is again not talking about it... yet the heartbeat would cause unmistakable distortion... why he skipped something like that completely?Callahan is not the only scientist who examined it." Brush-work: R suggested (PC contra) there was some visible brushwork on the original image, in a minute area of the image ("her eyes, including the irises, have outlines, apparently applied by a brush")."You did not read the rest, did you?(5) Condition of the surface layer: PC reports that the un retouched portions of the image, particularly the blue mantle and the face, are in a very good state of preservation, with no flaking or peeling. The three most recent inspections (G, PC and R) agree (i) that additions have been made to the image (gold leaf added to the sun's rays-which has flaked off; silver paint or other material to depict the moon - which has discolored; and the re-construction or addition of the angel supporting the Marian image), and (ii) that portions of the original image have been abraded and re-touched in places. Some flaking is visible, though only in retouched areas (mostly along the line of the vertical seam, or at passages considered to be later additions).(6) Varnish: The tilma has never been varnished.The technique of painting on fabric with water-soluble pigments (with or without primer or ground) is well-attested. The binding medium is generally animal glue or gum arabic (see: Distemper)Read further: Such an artifact is variously discussed in the literature as a tüchlein or sarga.[27] Tüchlein paintings are very fragile, and are not well preserved,[28] so the tilma's color values and state of preservation are exceptional.You keep on saying its a lie; i dont think you know what that word means. I know denial once I saw it, though