My brief reply to Robert Sungenis' Flip Flop on the Evidence Indicating the Imposture of Sister Lucy dos Santos. Can a "man of science" flip based on Christine Niles utterly ridiculous analysis of experts reports?

-

Christine, very good report! You covered a lot, and you did it very well. I know you are a good investigator from watching your other investigations, but I could easily see that you put even more effort into the investigation of Sr. Lucy. I was one who was more or less persuaded by Chojowski’s evidence, but you should it was mostly subjective, that is, he wanted there to be two different Lucy’s, and his dismissal of the Ideal Innovations report was most telling. One reason for Chojnowski’s bias in viewing the evidence is because he is a sedevacantist (the same as the Dimond brothers who think there is a fake Sr. Lucy). They want the Vatican to be sinister on everything so that they can justify their leaving the Church. Incidentally, the one thing you showed that really stood out, which neither Chojnowski nor the experts showed or even mentioned, was the angle of the camera! It makes all the difference. How anyone, claiming to be an expert, can make conclusions without including the effects on the photo due to camera angle, is telling. The only question I have remaining concern the profile of St. Lucy, which you didn’t cover. The forehead of the second Lucy is slanted while the forehead of the first Lucy is almost vertical. Also, the first Lucy has a turned-up nose while the second Lucy does not, and the second Lucy also has laterally protruding nostrils that are higher than the tip of her nose. Perhaps you can address these features in your follow-up.
Show less
2
Peter Chojnowski
So your argument is an ad hominem one. The idea that I dismissed the Ideal Innovations report is a lie. I said about the case exactly what they said to us about the case and put in their report. They don't know if the pre-1960 and the post1960 nun are the same person --- they said that they were on the fence about the entire issue --- they were sure however that the 1967 woman was the same as the post-1981 woman. If they are pretty sure +2 that the women portrayed in the 1967 pictures is the same as the one in the post-1981pictures are the same person, why are they not sure at all about the sameness of pictures from of the woman portrayed in the 50s and the 1967 woman. Can we then say that such a result implicitly indicates that they are different individuals. We posted the report after we got it and it has been on line, obviously unaltered, since we received it. Why this flip Robert from such a pathetic and biased treatment in which the lady did not speak to me at all or ask for my input? It was a simple hit piece. What about seeing one report within the context of all of the reports? It is absolute hypocrisy to say that I see what I want to see, when EVERYONE CAN SEE that the experts don't see the case THROUGH MY EYES AT ALL. And you actually claim that experts, who do deal with this kind of thing for a living, would not know that "camera angle" should be an element in their consideration of the identify of the women in the pictures. How absurd! Are you calling them morons?


Comments

  1. suzanneOctober 2, 2023 at 7:16 AM

    Robert Sungenis is not a reliable scholar. I would put him in the Salsa/Sisco camp of deceptions. Stay clear

    ReplyDelete
  2. Captain HaddockOctober 4, 2023 at 8:14 PM

    Dr. Sungenis makes a big point of Dr. Chojnowski and MHFM being sede and therefore being biased but leaves out one of the most prominent advocates of the fake Sister Lucy. Tradition in Action began promoting their own version of research and commentary in 2006 or so. I know this because I followed their analysis as it was published. They are publicly anti-sede. I would be more concerned if I were Sungenis if the "Lucy" of later years was indeed the true Sister Lucy. She endorsed VII and the anti-popes, along with the change to happy times (instead of her usual warnings and concern) during the VII "springtime". No more prophets of gloom and doom, no more concern for Modernists and infiltrators, no more concern for the path of Christendom (read Europe) in general post-WWII when the forces promoting and manipulating us to our own demise as a people have secured the reins of control thoroughly and entirely.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

"US-Friendly" Contact Within the Vatican Indicated Right After the Death of Pope Pius XII that US Governmental Authorities Must Use the American Cardinals to Prevent the Election of Cardinals Siri, Ottaviani, or Ruffini. The US Government Clearly Saw the Election of a Real Catholic to the Papal Throne in 1958 to be a Threat. Is there No Logical Connection between THIS Telegram and the Strange events of October 26,27, and 28th 1958 within the Sistine Chapel?

-
Image
  Here are the list of the 53 Cardinals who met in Rome for the Conclave in Rome in October 1958.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cardinal_electors_for_the_1958_papal_conclave Dr. Chojnowski: This telegraph from Ambassador Zellerbach (US ambassador to Italy) and the Secretary of State of the United States under the Eisenhower administration, John Foster Dulles is a clear path mark indicating to us what we should be looking for as regards the happenings in the 1958 papal conclave that met from October 25-28, exactly 2 weeks after this telegram to the US Secretary of State was written and sent.  What do we read in this telegram and why does it matter in our investigation into the fate of Sister Lucy dos Santos of Fatima? We do not, as of yet, have a smoking gun telegram, but this one is clearly a picture of a double-barrel shot gun loaded, locked, safety off, aimed, and finger on the trigger communication. The US government seems an imminent "threat" and it is...
Read more

Sister Lucia assassinated? Hidden? Replaced? Fatima Center Acknowledges the Existence of a Imposter Sister Lucy. Huge Breakthrough for Sister Lucy Truth.

-
Image
Here is the Just Released Statement of the Fatima Center:  Pinned by The Fatima Center @TheFatimaCenter 3 hours ago The Fatima Center's position is that it has been established with reasonable certainty that the woman presenting herself as Sister Lucia in all known public photos from 1967 onward was not the true Lucia.
Read more

Fraud: Facial Recognition Technology With 2,400 Picture Comparisons Shows Sister Lucy I (Pre-1958) and Sister Lucy II (Post-1958) are Definitely NOT the Same Person.

-
Image
Sister Lucy I: Missing Sister Lucy II: Impostor I can now release the overall results of the facial recognition tests that have been performed using the most up to date technology available analyzed by the most sophisticated software technicians and organized and analyzed by an expert investigator. "The only thing similar was the habit" were the words I just heard from the investigator in our phone conversation about the result. More specifics on the technicalities of the result will follow this initial announcement. On advice, I will not yet reveal the names of the investigators, the names of the companies involved, or the names of the programs being used. They are the best. They are all working on a comprehensive and definite report on the results and this will be released in the coming weeks. I want to avoid any interference in the investigation. After the final facial recognition report is complete, the second phase of the investigation will be launched whi...
Read more