Amazon Facial Recognition Technology Determines that Sister Lucy I and Sister Lucy II are not the Same Person. Not One Match Amidst Thousands of Comparisons.
Begin forwarded message:
The above message was sent to Sister Lucy Truth as the announcement of the result of the Amazon Facial Recognition Test. All of the data, with pictures and percentage identified similarity and matches to be released along with Investigators report soon. A further summary of all the data from this test will be released by Sister Lucy Truth in the coming weeks.
50 years ago today we had the hoax of the fake moon walk. Same time as they were presenting the fake Lucy. Not a coincidence. Same connected operators exploiting different venues.ReplyDelete
Sure is interesting how the incredible research you have commissioned and are presenting can't make a crack into the MSM, either secular or catholic. Here is real research and journalism. 75 to a 100 years ago you might imagine some lad standing on the corner hawking his papers "extra, extra read all about it Sister Lucy replaced by an imposter." Nothing but dull silence from the Rothschild/Rockefeller/Opus Dei media. What a quagmire of absolute lies we live in.ReplyDelete
Without an actual crime and DNA evidence the whole fiasco has the gravity of the 'new coke' conspiracy. A press conferance with a priest with testicles to explain the lucy issue or with law enforcement.Delete
"Fake moon walk" was real Mr. Anonymous. But fake Lucy is fake. Don't believe in every conspiracy theory! Use your reason.ReplyDelete
No, really it was fake. Go and take a look at the evidence including videos of the astronauts being interviewed online and the reflected images used, etc. Too much evidence to put here. Definitely fake though. As fake as the fake Sr Lucy. What a huge worldwide lie!Delete
The Moon Hoax is a matter in which REASON is not involved. There is no PHILOSOPHICAL argument that can prove the Moon landings were real. What matters is EVIDENCE. And there is no evidence that the Moon landings actually happened. Almost all the videotapes--erased. All of the telemetry data--erased. Still photos--only a DOZEN or so survive. Multiple light sources in the photos? Check. The motive? Tens of billions of dollars embezzled. (It's cheaper to fake the trip than to make it--so the excess money was stolen.Delete
"Somebody would have talked." Nobody talked about how the Titanic never sank. It was the Olympic that sank in 1912--insurance fraud. Nobody talked about how the Lusitania was loaded to the gills with ammunition. About 90 years later, a million shells were photographed on the ocean floor. "Somebody would have talked" is the feeblest, most pathetic straw that people cling to to hold onto their normie worldview.
Examine the evidence Mr. Stonka. All of the tapes of the original moon walk, thousands of reels have disappeared. The greatest step for mankind and all has been lost? Gee what kind of mistake is that? No way that ship could penetrate the Van Pelt rays that would have burned them to a crisp. Oh an how many of the astronauts happened to be freemasons. Just asking. You look it up and do some research. Oh there is an incredible list of lies....but governments don't lie...why they themselves tell you so. And you believe it. Ain't no "conspiracy theory" Mr. Stonka an incredible hoax plain and simple.ReplyDelete
I wonder if they've used the facial tech on the whole imposter Pope Paul VI conspiracy ? Definately would explain alot!Delete
Aren't gullible people, the "useful idiots" that Vladimir Lenin used to talk about? The great Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, he really had guts, and "cojones"!ReplyDelete
No wonder the Post Vatican II "machinery" did not like him; and during the the mid-1970s, I was living at a University College run by Opus Dei; and boy, the certainly did not like Archbishop Lefebvre!
I’d be more careful about calling Archbishop Lefebvre "great". It’s thanks to him that many traditional Catholics believe it is alright (if not a virtue) to resist the teachings and authority of the (man they consider the) Roman Pontiff, and that the Catholic Church can err. Nothing "great" about that; in fact it's anti-Catholic. He refused to make any definitive decision concerning the consequences of JP2’s heresies, namely that a heretic cannot be pope. That’s just Catholicism. So now you have 600 priests in the SSPX with mixed up ideas concerning the Church and the Papacy, all thanks to Archbishop Lefebvre. Nothing "great" about that at all. In fact, it’s a tragedy. The fact that Opus Dei didn't like him is irrelevant. They have their own "great" Founder to worry about.Delete
You're wrong about Archbishop Lefebvre. He only "resisted" the heresies. By your logic St. Athanasius was wrong. If not for the SSPX (the healthiest part of the church) albeit still sick because of this growing apostasy, we'd be in way worse shape than we can even fathom right now! And I think you are wrong, a heretic can be pope, just like Caiaphas. You are not recognizing the times.Delete
"You think" a heretic can be pope, but the Church said a heretic cannot be pope. [This proves the point of Librorum.] Have you read Bellarmine on the issue, the great Doctor of the Church, have you read the Papal Bull, Cum Ex Apostolatus, which decreed a heretic could never be pope and that anyone who contradicts it will incur the wrath of God and the Blessed Saints Peter and Paul, have you read and understood the canons of the Church such as canon 188.4 on the issue, or did you just go and ask a priest who set up his own jurisdictions ignoring the authority of his "Holy Father", an SSPX priest who refuses to tell you what the Church teaches (because he possibly doesn't even know himself).Delete
Archbishop Lefebvre may have resisted the heresies emanating from the Vatican, but he made up his own, such as a heretic can be pope, which has now been passed onto later generations like yourself as if it were Catholic teaching, but it is not. Look up any catechism or Catholic book published before Vatican II. We are not here to think this or think that, we are here to believe in the teachings of the Church. The SSPX makes up their own beliefs in order to bolster their irregular (to put it mildly) position.
As for St Athanasius, he surely did resist the heresies of the day but he was fully supportive of the Pope Liberius, and vice versa (unlike the parallel you are presumably trying to make between Abp Lefebvre and JP2). Liberius was not a heretic and most authorities say he did not excommunicate Athanasius. These were all lies made up by the Arians, the schismatic Orthodox, and the protestants, and shame on the SSPX and Michael Davies for resurrecting these lies.
Caiaphas was not the Roman Pontiff so trying to make out that he was a heretic pope is ridiculous. In any case, when Caiaphas rent his garments after Our Lord said he was the Son of God, this meant (according to St Jerome, Doctor of the Church) that he had lost his office and was no longer high priest. So good luck trying to use him as an example of a heretic pope, because it’s simply not true.
BACK TO SR. LUCY. I NEED NOT FANCY TECHNOLOGY...AMAZON OR ANY TO SHOW ME THAT THESE ARE NOT THE SAME PERSON. duh!ReplyDelete
Can you all not stay with the Sister....she was GOD ONLY KNOWS... perhaps assassinatedReplyDelete
Sadly I think that is exactly what happened to her. I know that she suffered, Our Lady had said that she would have much to suffer, but that she would be with her, so although she was alone physically, she wasn't alone, because she had our blessed mother with her.Delete
I prayed one night when I was in tears over not knowing what truly happened to her, and I asked our Lord and our blessed mother, that if there is anything at all out there that may reveal something to me, about what happened to her, please guide me to it.
I think it was several days or a week later I was on line and lo and behold, I stumbled upon something, it was a tiny link, in a document that was revealing evidence there was an imposter Lucia and that gve photographic comparisons, and dental comparisons of the two Lucia's, the evidence was compelling, there was no doubt that woman was not sister Lucia.
I opened the link and it led me to another document, by a woman named Svali, and she had been born into the Illuminati, Freemason NWO secret sect, but she had got out and had to change her identity and everything, and she had become somewhat of an informer on this group.
What's more Malachi Martin an ex Jesuit Priest and Vatican insider had revealed for many years, about this same group, operating in the Vatican, and having infiltrated into the Catholic Church into the highest echelons of the Church, into the Hierarchy of the Church and into the Papacy, which Padre Pio also revealed had occurred.
Malachi Martin had also revealed that there had been held Satanic Rituals in the Vatican, but most dismissed the claims, labeling them as Conspiracy Theories.
What's interesting is that she also spoke of these Satanic Rituals having taken place inside the Vatican, and others have since also come forward about these claims.
According to Svali, She was witness to one of these events, I think she was around the age of 12 yrs or a little older from memory at the time, and she was being prepped ahead of time for this event, as it was an initiation ceremony of some sort for her.
While there at the Vatican that evening she was witness to a child sacrifice, and she said that while standing there near the back, a man came in and two men began talking, and he mentioned to the other man about having got rid of Sister Lucia, and that she won't be a problem now because she was dead, to which Svali, thinking at the time that this sister Lucia they spoke of was her own younger Sister, having misunderstood them, and asked if this Sister Lucia was her sister she didn't know about, because they had sacrificed other siblings of her's before, to which the man then replied no silly, she was a Nun, and get this, she believed the year to have been 1958, only a few years prior to the Vatican II council.
This for me was perhaps the most compelling, as it suggests that something sinister had happened to her, and that her real date of her death would have been in the year 1958.
I felt strongly at the time that it was our Lord Jesus, our Blessed heavenly mother and even Sister Lucia herself perhaps if permitted from heaven, who had led me to discover those important truths.
They should use the same Amazon facial technology on the imposter Pope Paul VI conspiracy is true would definitely explain a lot especially in regards to the Third Secret and why it should be read no later than 1960
The real Sr. Lucia would never have promoted the Vatican II heresy. They had to remove her. In all likelihood she was murdered. The Free Masonic powers and its adherents are at the bottom of it all. In Christ's good time the light of truth will be shown on the evil shadows of those who follow Anti Christ.ReplyDelete
I believe there were only two Sister Lucy's. If our Lady told Sister Lucia about her cousins death,did she also tell her about her own?ReplyDelete
Look at what really happened at 911,Evil is devious to no end.
For true Catholics there is no need of getting any proof showing the results of comparison between the true and the impostor sister Lucy. The ridiculously tremendous difference between them has been always more than obvious for anyone who intends to preserve the true faith of our fathers. For the rest it is just a matter of choice. They can continue feeding their perverted souls denying the truth while defending and supporting a false church with false priests, false bishops , false cardinals, and false pope. Now we have a new group of walking dead people who consider themselves traditional Catholics for considering Bergoglio an anti pope and a heretic but consider Ratzinger the real pope and even worst, they see JPII as a saint. This is as contradicting as someone avoiding McDonalds burgers because they are junk food but instead eating At Burger King and Carl Jr restaurants because they want to think these two last ones are not junk food driven by the fear of having to give up the flavors and comfort that junk food provides while causing big health issues.ReplyDelete
Did Pope John 23rd read Fatima secret in 1959 because that's when she really died? Wasn't the Pope supposed to read it in 1960 or upon the death of Sr. Lucia, whichever came first?ReplyDelete
As far as I understand, it was supposed to be revealed in 1960 "at the latest". John XXIII was an antipope who started the false/mock council of Vatican II.Delete
Once maybe ten - twelve yrs. ago I asked Catholic Family to delve into the fake St. Lucy story. I was told it wouldn't happen--that Fr. Gruner (friend of John that ran the paper) said you can't prove it.ReplyDelete
That's why I'm glad you are doing this.
The media ptb have a lot invested in not upsetting the apple cart of all things Fatima.
I remember hearing on CBS Radio around the same time frame how Fr. Gruner lost his incardination. There was no explanation. It was just a mention. As if anyone knew what that was all about.
But it shows their intent to discredit him.
We are lied to about so much. Sad to find it's within the Church. Thank you Cardinal Vigano for not pussyfooting about.
I said all along that Benedict and JP2 were in on the scam. And both were heretics since they said that Jews need not be converted. Just like francis.
Sign of the Post Vatican II times!Delete
This is why I like and admire Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre; he had the "cojones" to resist them to their faces! If he (Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre) would have had to desire to "hit" Pope Paul VI "below the belt", he could have easily "exposed" Pope Paul VI's alleged "boyfriend"; who according to what the Swiss Guards alleged, during at least, part of the 1960s, this "boyfriend" would sneak up to the Papal Apartments, in the evenings, through the private papal elevator that would have taken him from the ground floor to wherever the Papal Apartments were located, obviously, at higher than ground level!
Also, I would challenge some "Opus Deists" that I had met throughout the mid to late seventies and eighties, about questionable, non-traditional practices and ideas that crept inside the Church, following Vatican II and the "introduction" of the NO Mass. Funnily enough, despite their many Theology and Divinity Degrees (and I have none of them), I would repeatedly be told, "GO AWAY, I don't want to know about that! You hate the pope! Don't you know that the Pope is infallible? You must obey the Pope!" I wonder if they ever read, Pope St. Pius V's Encyclical on the Mass (the name of which I currently cannot recall).