Break Through: German Website Picks Up on Sister Lucy Truth! Challenges Vatican to "Put the Truth on the Table." Dr. Chojnowski Accused of überhaupt zu überschießenden Formulierungen. How exciting!
Here are the basics of the Google Translate of the article into English. If anyone can provide a better translation I will publish it.
How many Sr. Lucia of Fatima are there?
AN APPEAL TO THE PROFESSIONALS .........
September 21, 2019
Between statements and broadcasts by Sr. Lucia dos Santos before 1957 and after, a break is noticeable. Can it be the same Sister Lucia?
Recent research by US philosophy professor Peter Chojnowski provides evidence of what critical minds have been saying for decades: the person who was presented to the world as Sr. Lucia of Fatima from 1967 to her death in 2005 may not have been the real seer.
This affair stinks to heaven. Because it is not explainable why the events of Fatima, recognized as early as 1930 by the Church (Diocesan Bishop of Leiria-Fatima, Dom Jose Alves Correia da Silva) and immensely popular in the faithful people, after the interview of Sr. Lucia On December 26, 1957, with Father Fuentes, and especially in the years after the Council, there was virtually no effect.
Since the publication of some of these reflections on 6 November 2014, almost five years have already passed.
In the meantime, I was informed by an artist who specializes in portraits - and thus in the meticulous observation of physiognomic details - that Sr. Lucia, shown since 1967, can not be the same person as the one known from earlier photographs. Thus, my guesses expressed in the 2014 article received increased importance and urgency.
Since the entire official Vatican history of Fatima is full of inconsistencies, let's return to it in more detail, this time on the most obvious question: How should two physiognomic and habitual completely dissimilar people be the same person - and what follows?
Sr. Lucia Truth - a project for education
Meanwhile, the mentioned Dr. Chojnowski started a project called Sr. Lucia Truth. He commissioned two facial recognition companies (Animetrics and iPRoBe, whose reports here are: Animetrics Facial Analysis Report, iPRoBe Facial Recognition), and Plastic Surgeon Dr. Ing. Julio Garcia, the dentist Ruud Karsten and the forensic artistLois Gibson with an opinion on the identity of the two persons. The conclusions confirmed what the naked eye has to recognize on the basis of the available photographs: the two persons are in no way similar to each other, thus they are two different individuals. 
Prehistory: break of continuity and strange interviews
Here are some considerations from five years ago:
It is astonishing with regard to the public effectiveness of Sr. Lucia, as I said, that since December 26, 1957, there is no longer any comprehensible and substantively plausible interview with the seer (measured in the familiar parts of the Fatima message). This is all the more bizarre, since the Fatima message is indeed recognized ecclesiastically as supernatural, so the church's side conceded to the seers that in the literal sense they were direct addressees of a divine message. And that should not be interesting for interviewees, priests, hierarchs? (For historical work, see the relatively timely publications Dr. Ludwig Fischer, Fátima - The Portuguese Lourdes, Kirnach-Villingen 1930, or Luis Gonzaga da Fonseca SJ, Maria speaks to the world, Italian first edition Le Meraviglie di Fàtima, 1931, 20th edition 1996, Freiburg, Switzerland, and William Thomas Walsh, Our Lady of Fatima, 1947)
On the contrary, the ecclesiastical authorities isolated the seer from 1958 onwards, drastically limited the possibilities of contact and did not permit any more interviews (Opinion of the Ordinary of Coimbra: "Sister Lucia has nothing further to communicate").
Much later, on 11.10.1992, there was an interview, with the Portuguese-Canadian journalist Carlos Evaristo as interpreter, which lasted for two hours - and in which Sr. Lucia contradicted her own previous statements from before 1960.
Also a second, this one-hour interview in the presence of Mr. Evaristo exactly one year later, on 11.10.93, took place.
Both interviews apparently served the purpose of making the message of Fatima compatible with the situation of the post-conciliar Church and the world. Between the statements of Sister Lucia until 26.12.57 and those after this date there is a break.
In any case, Carlos Evaristo plays an obscure role: these film shots (with scary and suggestive background music) clearly show that Evaristo had a specific intention to decry all critical voices n any case, Carlos Evaristo plays an obscure role: these film shots (with scary and suggestive background music) clearly show that Evaristo had a specific intention to delegitimize all critical voices. The followers of the late Fr. Gruner are unkindly referred to as... "conspiracy theorists". Mr. Evaristo appears very self-conscious - and does not address the evidential, namely the difference of physiognomies.
Sr. Lucia is cited in this report by the Portuguese television to the effect that the Third Secret is not contained in the Bible. This contradicts earlier statements that it is well contained in the Bible, namely in the Gospels and the Apocalypse of John (specifically chapters 8-13).
Likewise, Sister Lucy says there that the conversion of Russia would not be a conversion to the Catholic faith or Christianity, but only one from a worse state to a better one (!).
Clearly, that contradicts what she said before 1960.
Finally, the interview of the alleged seer with Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone from 17 November 2001 is very strange: Mark Fellows (Fatima in Twilight, Niagara Falls 2003) noticed that the published summary contained only a few statements of the seer. Should someone who has been honored with many visions and appearances of the Blessed Mother and given a clear message in terms of content have so little, almost nothing, to say? And should this person have forgotten or relativized the essence of the messages proclaimed in the 1940s and 50s?
This is incredible - not to mention that Pope Benedict on 13.05.2010 in Fatima, although somewhat cryptically said that the message of Fatima is still not complete ("Who believes that the prophetic mission of Fatima ended, is wrong himself. ") and thus the declaration of the Congregation of the Faith of 26.06.2000, thus contradicted his own, and the aforementioned Bertone interview.
Unfortunately, Pope emeritus Benedict XVI [supports] Cardinal Bertone's book of lies aimed at undermining the credibility of Fatima The Seer of Fatima (2007)....
But the question arises: could it really be the person who had been honored as the child of shattering visions?
The strange photographs
Chojnowski deals extensively with the available photographs available on the internet and in books.
One thing immediately stands out: the already familiar photos of Sr. Lucia as a child and as a young nun in Dorothean habit on the one hand and as a Carmelite on the other hand are strange. You do not have to be a detective or a medical examiner to find that there is no similarity between the two physiognomies. Also, the age difference, which should make up according to the respective information about 20 years, is not apparent. After all, there is a significant difference between the two in the way in which they appear in public. The charisma is different.
It should not be forgotten that in times without the Internet, it would not have been too difficult to perform a smear comedy of this kind. Who knew Sister Lucia personally in the 60s? 
After all, television was not nearly as widespread at the time as it is today.
The still living relatives and acquaintances of the seer were probably as far away from this as any other contemporary due to the strict Carmelite [rule]. Even if relatives were allowed to visit Carmel, they were separated from the sister by the conversation grid (possibly double and curtain). Thus, the identity of the sister in question was also disguised.
Conclusion: way with self-censorship, away with the excuses, on the table with the truth!
Did we really ever believe that a person who looks like that in 1958 would look like that in 1967?
Maybe, maybe not, at least many of us have censored their perception themselves. We did not want to see.
It does not matter what Carlos Evaristo wrote about his apparently very important priest, Prof. Msgr. José Geraldes Freire and many others who defend the official Vatican Fatima policy: we see with our own eyes how much the Fatima message is suppressed by the church authorities  and their effect in the church people has almost completely lost. The Hierarchy is certainly not concerned with the warnings and promises of Our Lady of Fatima.
In addition: Russia has not converted. The period of peace did not come. The church is in a state of apocalyptic disruption, from the Pope to the parishes of Europe. The state of spiritual renewal that Portugal had received after the consecration of this country in 1931 and was supposed to have been a model of the world level did not materialize. The person who had an important message to teach because of a special mission by Our Lady of the Church and the world lost her power - and suddenly she looked very different. At the same time, the message was reinterpreted, not least by the then Cardinal Ratzinger and later Pope Benedict XVI. It obviously needed a person who pretended to be Sister Lucia and joined in the new Vatican politics.
Even the canonization of Jacinta and Francisco are in this context as a diversion maneuver, and therefore considered to be suspect: why was not her cousin canonized, not even beatified?
The answer can only be: Those who have authority in this area consciously prevent the investigations necessary for a beatification. The purpose of this cabal is to continue the post-conciliar confusion.
A scientifically flawless and comprehensible biography of the seer of Fatima should not be written and does not exist so far.
For then all the satanic resistance of conspiratorial circles in the church hierarchy would come to light against a message from heaven.
Therefore, a nasty smear comedy was also performed on the public persona of Sr. Lucia.
Hence the appeal to all who need to know their expertise and to all those who, because of their ministry, have to teach the faithful and lead them to salvation, including Pope emeritus Benedict XVI: Put the truth on the table!
* Wolfram Schrems, Vienna, Mag. Theol., Mag. Phil., Catechist, has been working on the subject since reading Mark Fellows Fatima in Twilight eight years ago.
The Portuguese bishops consecrated their land on May 13, 1931 the Immaculate Heart of Mary and repeated the consecration in the face of the threat of war on May 13, 1938. It is reported by an almost explosive Renaissance of Catholic life, by an abrupt increase in the priestly Appointments and a tenfold increase in the number of religious. The government of President Antonio de Oliveira Salazar, who kept Portugal out of the world war and communism, is, of course, considered a blessing of consecration. And of course the victory over communism 1974/75. By this example one can see what effect such a consecration would have had in other countries, let alone the consecration of Russia, which was explicitly demanded. The believing people knew about it or at least suspected it. That is why Fatima was so popular until around 1960. All the more massive was the disappointment, as the third secret was then suppressed. On it was the awareness of the Fatima message. In 1917, 70,000 eyewitnesses had seen the sun miracle, in 2019 only a tiny minority in and out of the church knows about Fatima and the consequences. The work of Subversion was apparently successful.
 Chojnowski's examination of the identity of the seer of Fatima is meritorious. Unfortunately, on his website Radadtthomist he engages in a massive polemic against meritorious traditional Catholics who address the question in a different way. He tends to excessive formulations (recognizable even in his lectures). This approach is critical.
 Chojnowski also tries to prove that some of the photos, for example by Pope Paul VI. with the (alleged) seer are photomontages. We can not go into that for reasons of space.
 The official Fatima side, the World Apostolate of Fatima (WAF) and the Vatican, has spoken very poorly about Fr. Nicholas Gruner. By the way, he rejected the exchange theory, at least he stated that the identity of the seer is known until 1989 (in this interview he answers somewhat complicated and verbose on a simple question, the interviewer, John Vennari, also already deceased, does not seem to be satisfied to be). Gruner but met with his own sympathizers (see postings) to contradiction. After a letter to the editor of Tradition in Action, he accepted the replacement version as possible:
I did speak with Fr. Gruner about the two Sr. Lucy's theory at the St. Joseph's Forum Conference and he did say that he thought it was possible. K.W.R.