Fatima Fraud: Our Case For An Imposter Sister Lucy, October 2019

Sr. Lucy Truth Presentation 

I.              1Introductory remarks on Sr. Lucy and this presentation
a.    Acknowledgments
b.    2Dr. Chojnowski autobiographical comments 
                                               i.     Received degrees in political science and philosophy from Christendom College and a Ph.D. in philosophy from Fordham University.
                                              ii.     Specializing in the philosophy of St. Thomas Aquinas and Catholic Social Thought.
                                             iii.     Have taught at institutions of higher learning for over 30 years and written over 300 articles for a variety of publications, both scholarly and popular:
1.    Institutions of learning
a.    Fordham University, Fairfield University, Iona College, St. Louis University, St. Mary’s University of Minnesota, Gonzaga University, St. Mary’s Academy and College in St. Mary’s. KS, and Immaculate Conception Academy in Post Falls, ID. 
2.    Publications
a.    British Catholic Medical Journal, Catholic Family News, Latin Mass Magazine, Journal of Metaphysics, the Fatima Crusader
c.    3Founding of Sr. Lucy Truth
                                               i.     Conceived in 2017
                                              ii.     In 2018 established with the IRS as a tax-exempt nonprofit organization for educational purposes. All tax-deductible donations to this organization go specifically to its stated purposes.
                                             iii.     Purpose:To discover the truth concerning the life and person of Sister Lúcia dos Santos of Fatima. 
1.    Specifically: Using the latest scientific means and expert consultation to find out whether or not there was the substitution of an imposter for the real Sister Lucy of Fatima during the years after 1958.
d.    4Overall plan of Sister Lucy Truth
                                               i.     3 Phases
                                              ii.     First phase: to gather scientific evidence and expert analysis on the various aspects of Sister Lucy available on the internet, in authoritative biographies, as well as handwritten samples.
1.    There are still many reports coming in and to be commissioned.
2.    Ideally, a DNA sample of Sr. Lucy will be obtained, which may be compared with her living relatives. This process will require an estimated $15,000.
                                             iii.     Second phase: to present the evidence before an internationally based private investigator to solve what happened to the real Sr. Lucy
                                             iv.     (Third phase? Move to have the evidence published by mainstream Catholic media platforms and spread awareness among Church hierarchy?)
e.    5Purpose of current presentation
                                               i.     To present the scientific and expert evidence gathered so far and demonstrate how conclusive it is regarding the existence of the imposter Sr. Lucy.
                                              ii.     To spread awareness of this important work and to ask for financial and spiritual support. 
1.    It should be noted: Sr. Lucy Truth depends entirely on the generosity of donors. Without donations, the project cannot move forward.
II.             Body
a.    6Preliminary note before going into the relevant biographical details of Sr. Lucy
                                               i.     The identity of Sr. Lucy is tied up with the history of the Fatima apparitions and the authenticity and importance of the Secrets revealed to the seers. The events culminating in 1960 and thereafter demand a reasonable explanation! The following points cover the evolution of the “message of Fatima” and reveal to any sensible observer that something clearly went wrong regarding the Vatican and the message of Fatima in the years following 1960.
b.    7Background biographical details of Sr. Lucy
                                               i.     Born March 28, 1907 just outside Fatima.
                                              ii.     Apparitions of the Angel occurred between the spring and fall of 1916. 
                                             iii.     Six apparitions of Our Lady occurred between May and October 1917 to Lucy and her cousins, Jacinta and Francisco Marto, on the 13thday of each month.
1.    The third apparition on July 13, 1917. Here Our Lady reveals the Secret of Fatima, which is in three parts, and promises the miracle of the sun in October.
a.    The heart of the Secret, the remedy, is a very specific request: The solemn and public Consecration of Russia to the Immaculate Heart, in union with the bishops of the whole world, and the Communion of Reparation on First Saturdays, which the Holy Father must promote. The good and bad consequences of the Secret hinge on fulfilling this request.
                                             iv.     Basic messages of Our Lady of Fatima are tied up with the Secret she reveals to the children. The urgent and immediate calls for penance and prayers, the request of the Consecration and the Communions of Reparation, do not make sense outside of this context! This is no generic call to holiness. It is specific for our times, concerning the life of the Church and the fate of the world.
                                              v.     8Miracle of the sun occurred on October 13, 1917
                                             vi.     The apparitions at Pontevedra occurred between 1925-1926
                                           vii.     The apparition at Tuy in 1929
                                          viii.    The apparition at Rianjo in August 1931
1.    Here Our Lord famously compared His ministers, the Pope and bishops, to the King of France, complaining: “They did not want to heed My request. Like the King of France they will repent and do so, but it will be late. Russia will already have spread her errors throughout the world, causing wars and persecutions of the Church. The Holy Father will have much to suffer.”
                                             ix.     Sr. Lucy receives papal permission to transfer to the Carmelites in 1948.
                                              x.     Last public interview with Fr. Augustin Fuentes in December 1957. After this interview, Sr. Lucy was not allowed to be interviewed anymore for the next several decades. 
1.    The interview was not published until June 1959.
2.    Fr. Fuentes described Sr. Lucy’s appearance as “very sad, pale, and drawn.”
3.    She told Fr. Fuentes: “The chastisement from Heaven is imminent. The year 1960 is on us, and then what will happen? It will be very sad for everyone, and far from a happy thing if the world does not pray and do penance before then.”
                                             xi.     9Then followed a series of disturbing events casting a foreboding shadow over the legacy of Fatima as 1960 approached.
1.    Two weeks after Fr. Fuentes’ interview was published, the diocese of Coimbra released a disconcerting note publicly disavowing Fr. Fuentes along with the following words of correction, supposedly from Sr. Lucy:
a.    “I know nothing, and could therefore say nothing, about such punishments, which are falsely attributed to me.”
b.    The note closes with these words of finality: “Sister Lucy has said everything she believed it her duty to say about Fatima; she has said nothing new….” 
2.    John XXIII made absolutely no mention of Fatima on September 13, 1959 on the anniversary of the fifth apparition, when Italy was formally consecrated to the Immaculate Heart, much to everyone’s shock.
                                           xii.     1960 arrives. Everyone was eagerly expecting the revelation of the Third Secret.
1.    On February 8, 1960, the Portuguese news agency in Rome released a statement, received anonymously from “Vatican sources,” saying, “It is most probable that the Secret of Fatima will remain, forever, under absolute seal.”
a.    No one from the Vatican, not even John XXIII, openly assumed responsibility, yet clearly the authorization was from John XXIII.
b.    John XXIII and Paul VI, in all of their public talks and writings, never made even the smallest reference to the Secret of Fatima. It would not be mentioned officially until 1967 by Cardinal Ottaviani, speaking on behalf of Paul VI.
2.    One of the incredible portions of that press release contained a public disavowal of the trustworthiness of the three shepherd seers, even though the Church had already formally approved of Fatima and declared it “worthy of belief.” This was a complete contradiction.
3.    The results were devastating across Christendom. There was mass disillusionment and disappointment, which did great harm to devotion to Our Lady of Fatima.
4.    Articles were quickly published in 1960 that reprimanded the “morbid curiosity” and “alarmism” of the Fatima devotees. These articles also then introduced the now-persistent division between the “message of Fatima,” meant for the public, and its Secret, meant for the Holy Father.
                                          xiii.    10On October 11, 1962 (now 57 years ago), at the opening of the Second Vatican Council, John XXIII made his infamous remarks denouncing the “prophets of doom.”
                                          xiv.     Sr. Lucy was not seen publicly until May 13, 1967 with Paul VI, then May 13 in 1982, 1991, and 2000 with John Paul II.
1.    Strikingly, in her 1967 appearance before the world, “Sr. Lucy” appeared jovial and in good health!
                                            xv.     The message of the Vatican continually changed over the next few decades about what the “true message of Fatima” was. 
1.    Fatima became a vague call for conversion, penance, and prayers.
2.    On February 11, 1967, Cardinal Ottaviani, speaking for Paul VI, repeated that the Third Secret would not be revealed. He said the faithful should content themselves with the “public message” of prayer and penance.
a.    Notably he remarks, “We must dispel the fearsaroused by the Secret. Fatima is not an alarming message. It is a message of hope.”
b.    Ottaviani claims that the Secret was meant only for the Pope.
c.     He claims that the prophecies of Fatima were being fulfilled before their very eyes, and that Fatima was an optimistic and hopeful message about ecumenism!
                                          xvi.     Cardinal Ratzinger’s comments on the third Secret in a 1984 interview are vague and contradictory. However, once Russia is brought up, Ratzinger refuses to continue on the topic. Notably, Ratzinger revised the original text to remove key information in the 1985 edition of the interview.
                                         xvii.    11In her 1992 interview, “Sr. Lucy” contradicts almost all of what she had formerly said and makes many bizarre statements. Here she introduces a completely novel understanding of the Fatima message from everything she wrote about formerly, but one that is complementary to the propaganda of the Vatican.
1.    12She denies that that Third Secret was supposed to be revealed in 1960 even though it was she herself who had indicated that the secret ought to be revealed either by 1960 or upon her death, whichever came first.
2.    She states, in agreement with the Vatican, that the Secret was only for the Pope, but he could have revealed it if he had wanted to. 
3.    She adds that she was opposed to its public revelation, in complete contradiction to everything that was stated by her and every bishop and theologian before 1960.
4.    She says that Russia did not need to be mentioned explicitly by name in the Consecration.
a.    These are striking contradictions for the seer who formerly complained over and over that Popes Pius XI and XII had not precisely followed the request of Our Lady in each particular step and detail!
5.    She seems to know positively that heaven had accepted John Paul II’s consecration of the world. Yet when asked in 1947 about Pius XII’s 1942 consecration, Sr. Lucy admitted she did not know whether heaven had accepted it because it had not been revealed to her. Yet at the same time, she added that Pius XII’s 1942 consecration did not followOur Lady’s request exactly.
6.    Also World War II was a war against the Jews, who “continue to be a chosen people of God.”
a.    This last statement is very strange since Sr. Lucy had never before spoken of the Jews, yet here she approvingly uses the precise phrase that was promoted by the liberals and modernists in support of Jewish ecumenism!
7.    One last thing to mention (a fuller summary of the interview can be found on YouTube), “Sr. Lucy” explicitly claims that the “triumph of the Immaculate Heart has taken place”! But then she renders it meaningless by saying, “The triumph is an ongoing process.” 
a.    Ratzinger, as Pope Benedict, will flatly contradict this statement in 2010 by saying that the triumph of the Immaculate Heart has not yet occurred.
8.    This 1992 interview, the first extensive one of “Sr. Lucy” since 1957, is so devastating to the Fatima message that most conservative and traditional proponents of Fatima clamored to excuse it away, sometimes even claiming that Carlos Evaristo, the translator in the interview, fabricated the answers.
a.    Evaristo has publicly defended himself and his professional reputation repeatedly and insisted that he reported exactly what “Sr. Lucy” said.
b.    Is Evaristo lying? Or should we take him at his word that he sincerely believed he was speaking with the seer of Fatima and faithfully reporting her words?
c.     If Evaristo is telling the truth, how do we explain the extremely worrisome words of “Sr. Lucy”?
                                        xviii.    13There is the other bizarre behavior of the post-1967 Sr. Lucy that was not characteristic of the real Sr. Lucy.
1.    In her 1967 appearance, there is video footage of “Sr. Lucy” genuflecting before Paul VI, grabbing his hand, kissing it, and holding it.
2.    In 2000, she kissed the hands of JPII after receiving Communion.
3.    At the supposed revelation of the Third Secret, Sr. Lucy’s happiness and gestures were awkwardly ostentatious.
4.    The Associated Press records have video of “Sr. Lucy” and JPII conversing in 2000, and Sr. Lucy reaches out for JPII’s hand and holds it as they talk. 
                                          xix.     14The Third Secret is released on June 26, 2000, accompanied by an incongruent “theological commentary” by Cardinal Ratzinger that is meant to “clarify” the content of the Third Secret.
1.    Early on, Ratzinger cites the Jesuit Fr. Edouard Dhanis, a Modernist who was famous in the 1940s and ‘50s for trying to debunk Fatima, specifically any messages from Our Lady to Sr. Lucy after 1917. Certainly not a good sign that Fr. Dhanis is the only Fatima expert that Cardinal Ratzinger thinks is relevant to cite.
2.    Ratzinger says the Third Secret can be a “genuine help in understanding the Gospel.” This reverses the Vatican’s message for the past 40 years, which adamantly claimed the Third Secret was for the Pope alone, and the “public message of Fatima” for the laity.
3.    Interestingly, and more confusingly, in 2010, Ratzinger, speaking as Pope Benedict, said, “We would be mistaken to think that Fatima’s prophetic message has been completely realized” and admitted that the triumph of the Immaculate Heart has not yet occurred. 
a.    This contradicts what Sr. Lucy said in her 1992 interview.
                                            xx.     Died at the convent in Coimbra on February 13, 2005, aged 97.
c.    15Overview of the PROBLEM that requires an explanation
                                               i.     The life of Sr. Lucia and the catastrophic changes in the Church over the course of the 20thcentury give rise to a problem that demands an explanation.
1.    How do we account for the complete change in Sr. Lucy after 1960? 
2.    How do we account for the behavior of the Vatican and Church hierarchy remaining completely silent on the Third Secret for 40 years and promoting a propaganda campaign to create an entirely new understanding of Fatima, the understanding introduced by Modernists and Liberals, that waters it down into insignificance? 
3.    How do we account for “Sr. Lucy’s” complete support of this propaganda as well as her requests for complete and blind submission to the postconciliar Popes, when before 1960 she did not hesitate to point out how the preconciliar Popes had failed to heed to Our Lady’s requests and how displeasing this was to Our Lord, Our Lady, and herself?
                                              ii.     More specifically, how do we account for the dramatic changes in Sr. Lucy’s behavior, in her appearance, and even in her handwriting?
                                             iii.     16What is the most reasonable explanation based on the facts?
1.    Sister Lucy Truth proposes that the best explanation that could account for these substantial differences in the behavior of Sr. Lucy is that she was replaced by an entirely different person, resembling her and acting in her name.
                                             iv.     Does the evidence suggest that a different person posed as Sr. Lucy after the 1960s? OverwhelminglyYES.
d.    17Overview of the evidence
                                               i.     Multiple facial recognition analysis reports conducted by leading experts in the field including an analysis by a facial “super-recognizer.”
                                              ii.     Forensic art analysis by one the world’s foremost forensic artists.
                                             iii.     Plastic surgeon report by a world-class plastic surgeon.
                                             iv.     Handwriting analysis by a leading forensic handwriting expert, who has provided a sworn declaration along with his analysis.
                                              v.     Dental analysis by a senior lecturer in periodontics.
e.    Note: We’ll discuss the handwriting analysis at the end because the other reports focus only on Sr. Lucy’s physical appearance.
f.     18Dental Report
                                               i.     Dr. Ruud Karsten is a senior lecturer at the Radboud University College of Dental Sciences in The Netherlands. Dr. Karsten’s specialty is Periodontics (the branch of dentistry concerned with the structures that support the teeth).
Email from Dr. Karssten: “Yes, for sure, overall I hold that there are two Sister Lucias, the one who saw the Virgin Mary in 1917 and …the other who attended the 50thAnniversary of the Fatima Apparitions, which was in 1967…she being the Lucia who died in 2005. 

Dr. Karsten focused on the upper front teeth and adjacent gums of Lucia I and Lucia II. 
Gnathological Characteristics: From a comparison of the lower facial profile of Lucia 1 and Lucia II it is obvious, even for untrained persons that the profiles are different. Lucia II shows a progeny of the lower jaw, making the profile of her lower face more concave, compared to Lucia I, whose profile is convex.

19Report findings
1.    Background biographical history: Sr. Lucia I had her upper teeth removed over the course of 1948 due to a severe inflammatory disease and replaced with an acrylic denture. Her dentist at the time was Dr. Alcino Magelhaes, whom we will return to in the handwriting analysis portion of this presentation.
2.    Based on the limited photographic evidence and the fact that both Lucys seem to have artificial teeth, Dr. Karsten concludes, “It is not possible to distinguish Lucia I from Lucia II” at least based on an analysis of the teeth alone.
3.    20However, Dr. Karsten notes the distinctly different shapes of the lower jaw of both Lucys. 
a.    He notes that the extent of the difference between the two Lucys cannot be explained only by aging or by dentures and must therefore be a natural, that is, genetic, difference.
b.    Based on this significant difference alone, Dr. Karsten is confident that there are two Sr. Lucys.
                                            iii.     21Conclusions
1.    If Dr. Karsten has concluded that age and dental surgery cannot account for the different appearances of the two Sr. Lucy’s jaws, but that it must be a natural difference, then the most reasonable conclusion is that we are dealing with two different people.
2.    possible objection: couldn’t plastic surgery alter the appearance of the jaw?
a.    There will be a difference of opinion among two of our later experts, the plastic surgeon and the forensic artist. The plastic surgeon believes that a chin implant could account for the different appearance, but the forensic artist will deny this and further add, even if it such a drastic change could be achieved through plastic surgery, there would be no reason to offer it, nor would anyone desire it. We will return to this later.
g.    22Plastic Surgeon Report
                                               i.     Dr. Julio Garcia is a world-class, certified plastic surgeon. He was recognized by the International Association of Plastic Surgeons as a “Leading Physician of the World” and named the top plastic surgeon in the Las Vegas area in 2016.
                                              ii.     23Report findings
1.    Dr. Garcia was given an extensive set of photographs showing Sr. Lucy as a child, as an adult, and in her 1967 and post-1967 appearances.
Conclusion: “As a board certified Plastic Surgeon, I am of the opinion that Subject B and Subject C share some similarities but I AM VERY CONFIDENT they are NOT the SAME INDIVIDUAL. The strongest evidence for this conclusion is the discrepancy between the CHINS. Subject C and Subject D have far more prominent protrusive chins when compared to the profile view of Subject B. This difference cannot be explained by the aging process. Nor could dental work account for the observed discrepancy. 

CHIN: The chin of Subject B INCONSISTENT with the chin of Subject C and Subject D. As we age, we lose fat and bone making the appearance of the chin less prominent over time. Both Subject C and Subject D have a far more prominent chin then is evident in Subject B….Subject B’s chin is different than both Subject C and Subject D in a manner which cannot be explained by the aging process. THE CHIN WILL NOT BE ALTERED IN THE MANNER APPARENT IN THE IMAGES AND VIDEO WITH USUAL DENTAL WORK….
[For identification] The chin /jaw is consistent between Subject A and Subject B. The chin/jaw is consistent between Subject C and Subject D. 


In Subject D, the aging of the upper lid is not compatible with the upper eyelids of Subject A/B and normal aging. An upper eyelid difference exists between Subject C and D although aging alone could be a possible explanation. 

However, THE EYELID difference between Subject B and D is SIGNIFICANTLY DIFFERENT IN A MANNER THAT IS LIKELY NOT DUE TO AGE. The same is true when comparing Subject B and Subject C, however, the appearance of Subject D’s lids IS STRONGER EVIDENCE. 

It would be VERY UNUSUAL to not be able to detect a crease in the upper lid when an individual is young and then observe such a crease when that same individual ages. 

In addition, the distance between the bottom of Subject B’s eyebrow to her upper eyelids is SHORTER THAN THE DISTANCE OBSERVABLE ON SUBJECT C AND D. The Distance should SHORTEN, not lengthen, as a person ages because the brow is brought lower during the aging process.
2.    He states that he is “very confident they are notthe same individual.”
a.    He further states that the young Sr. Lucy and pre-1960 Sr. Lucy are the same individual. He also believes that the 1967 and elderly Sr. Lucy are the same individual.
3.    24Inconsistent Chin
a.    Dr. Garcia notes that the chins of Sr. Lucy I and II are totally inconsistent.
b.    As one ages, the chin becomes less prominent over time, yet clearly the chin has become far more prominent in the post-1967 Sr. Lucy.
c.     Dr. Garcia tellingly argues that the different chin cannot be explained either through aging or dental work, which is exactly the same thing that Dr. Karsten reported independently of Dr. Garcia.
d.    Garcia notes that the only way the chin could change in this manner would be through a chin implant.
                                                                                                     i.     But then the question is: why would Sr. Lucy ever need a chin implant?
                                                                                                    ii.     The only other explanation that Dr. Garcia suggests is a genetic difference, exactly as Dr. Karsten concluded, which means we’re dealing with two different people.
4.    25Different eyelids and eyebrows
a.    Dr. Garcia notes that the pre-1967 and post-1967 Lucys have different eyelids and eyebrows that cannot be explained by the aging process.
                                                                                                     i.     However, the difference in the eyelids between the 1967 and elderly “Sr. Lucy” is explainable by aging since they are relatively consistent in appearance.
b.    26The eyebrows are too different to be explained by age.
                                                                                                     i.     Dr. Garcia notes, “The distance should shorten, not lengthen, as a person ages.”
                                                                                                    ii.     The distance between the eyebrow and eyelash is longer in the fake Sr. Lucy, not shorter, which is the opposite of what should happen with aging.
c.     27Nevertheless, Dr. Garcia notes that the changing angle and thickness of the eyebrows between the real and fake Sr. Lucys can be explained by aging.
5.    The thinner lips in the post-1967 Lucys is explainable by age and therefore inconclusive in Dr. Garcia’s expert opinion.
6.    Noses
a.    Dr. Garcia notes that the noses appear to be different but said more photos would need to be analyzed before a certain conclusion could be reached.
                                            iii.     28Conclusions
1.    Dr. Garcia backs up his analysis by stating, “All of the following opinions set forth above are stated to a reasonable degree of medical probability.”
a.    This isn’t armchair, conspiratorial gut feelings, but stated by a medical professional and with a “reasonable degree of medical probability.”
2.    What is the best explanation for these differences? Dr. Garcia himself believes there are two individuals and places his professional reputation on the line.
h.    29Forensic Art
                                               i.     Lois Gibson is one of the world’s foremost forensic artists. She holds the 2017 Guinness World Record for most identifications by a forensic artist. She has helped Houston police solve 1,266 cases alone. She has authored a standard textbook in forensic art. Gibson also received dental training at the University of Texas Health Science Center in San Antonio.
1.    30In a private email, Mrs. Gibson stated, “Even one of these [forensic reports] is a complete confirmation. I could have done many more. Any one of the three is conclusive so I sense this is totally convincing.”
                                             Report of Lois Gibson: There is no perfect comparison between the same individual in separate photos. However, it is possible to know when the individuals in different photos are not the same. Due to the various completely different facial structures of Lucy I and Lucy II, IT IS IMPOSSIBLE THESE ARE THE SAME WOMAN

1. The foreheads show much different underlying frontal bones. The superciliary arch of B protrudes forward much more than A.
2. The noses are a different shape with B having a larger, rounder, and more downward angled tip which cannot be explained by cartilage growth.
3. The philtrum (distance from the top of the nose to the top edge of the top lip) is longer on A than B. The lips on A are thicker and narrower on the horizontal plane than B, with A’s bottom lip protruding forward much more than B. Dentures, should they be involved, would replicate the pre-existing dentition and thus not cause such a drastic difference*.
4. The horizontal mental indention below the bottom lip, is wider on the vertical plane on A and indents deeper below the bottom lip on A than on B.
5. The mental protuberance of B projects forward to a drastic extent far different from the mental protuberance of A which recedes below the bottom lip. There is no plastic surgery that could accomplish this, nor would it be offered or desired.
* This author attended dental school and constructed dentures at the University of Texas Health Science Center in San Antonio 1977–1978.
1. The nasal bone of A is narrower than B. This causes the eyebrow hair growth to occur closer together in the horizontal center of the superciliary arch of A compared to the wider-apart eyebrows of B.
2. The eyes are closer together due to 1. above.
3. The bottom third of the nose is narrower in A compared to B. The nostril holes of A are rounder, more visible when viewed frontally and those holes are closer together on A than on B. The nasal holes of A are a different shape than the nasal holes of B.
4. A’s philtrum (the distance from the bottom of the nose to the top edge of the top lip) is longer than B’s philtrum.
5. The lips of A are narrower on the horizontal plane than B. The top lip of A is wider on the vertical plane than B’s top lip. The bottom lip of A is thicker on the vertical plane and protrudes further forward beyond the horizontal indention below the lips compared to B.
A and B are shown at a much different age in this photo comparison. Even taking that age difference into consideration, the drastic lighting shows that B’s mental protuberance of her mandible is larger and thrusts much farther forward from her facial plane than A. The aging process would cause the mandible to shrink, not grow larger. Said more simply, the chins of A and B have a drastically different shape. This drastic difference in the mandible area shows these cannot be the same individual. There is no plastic surgery that would make A’s chin look like B’s chin. Differences described in 1 through 5 in Our Lady of Fatima Nun Comparison Two also hold true in the above individuals even considering the large age difference and the presence of glasses on B. It must be noted this writer has successfully reconstructed faces with only the skulls of unidentified murder victims, and has written a textbook about this subject (Forensic Art Essentials, 2007).

                                              ii.     Report findings
1.    Gibson states that the two Sr. Lucys have “completely different facial structures” and therefore that “it is impossible these are the same woman.”
2.    31Profile comparison
a.    The degree to which the foreheads protrude cannot be explained.
b.    The noses have different shapes that cannot be explained by cartilage growth.
c.     The philtrum (the distance from the bottom of the nose to the top of the lip) is a different length on each individual.
d.    The mental protuberance, which is the bony protuberance in front of the lower jaw that forms the chin, projects forwardin Sr. Lucy II but recedesin Sr. Lucy I.
e.    Gibson notes, “There is no plastic surgery that could accomplish this, nor would it be offered or desired.”
3.    32Facial comparison
a.    The nasal bone of Sr. Lucy I is narrower than Sr. Lucy II, which also explains why Sr. Lucy I’s eyebrows are closer together than Sr. Lucy II’s.
                                                                                                     i.     The eyes of Sr. Lucy I are closer together for the same reason. Sr. Lucy II’s eyes are much farther apart.
b.    The bottom third of the nose is narrower on Sr. Lucy I, and the nostril holes are different shapes than on Sr. Lucy II.
c.     33Gibson repeats independently what Dr. Garcia, the plastic surgeon, has said—that the chin should shrink, not grow larger, with age. Yet the chin of Sr. Lucy II is far larger than Sr. Lucy I.
                                                                                                     i.     Interestingly, Gibson denies that plastic surgery could make Sr. Lucy I’s chin look like Sr. Lucy II’s.
4.    34Forensic illustrations
a.    Gibson illustrated how the real Sr. Lucy would most likely appear at the ages of 60 and 80.
b.    These aren’t the mere sketches of an amateur.
                                                                                                     i.     Gibson has successfully reconstructed faces with only the skulls of victims and has written a standard textbook on forensic art. Her professional career has been based on her expertise in forensic illustration.
c.     Compared with images of “Sr. Lucy” at 1967, supposedly at the age of 60, and the elderly Sr. Lucy in 1991 at the age of 84, one can see that the two look nothing alike.
                                            iii.     35Conclusions
1.    Regarding the shape of the chin, two experts in their respective fields are at odds whether plastic surgery could produce the kind of difference that exists between Sr. Lucy I and II.
a.    However, Gibson adds that even if it were possible, why would it be desirable if it produces such a drastic difference in appearance compared to the real Sr. Lucy?
2.    The most reasonable explanation, according to both experts, regardless of the possibility of a chin implant, is that we are dealing with two different individuals.
a.    This conclusion is based not just on the issue of the chin, but the accumulation of all the other factors analyzed by both professionals.
b.    It should be repeated that up until this point, three different experts have all independently affirmedthe same basic points regarding the drastic differences in appearance between the Sr. Lucys.
c.     Not only that, they have also all independently denied that aging and dental work could cause the sorts of differences seen.
                                                                                                     i.     This is one of the most frequent objections you will find online or in discussion: “Aging accounts for these differences. Dental work accounts for the differences.”
                                                                                                    ii.     No, three different medical experts, two of whom have formally studied dentistry, deny these as reasonable explanations. These are no longer legitimate explanations of the drastically different appearances of the Sr. Lucys.

i.     36Brayovic Super-Recognizer Analysis
                                               i.     Ms. Dragica Brayovic is a facial “super-recognizer.” She is currently involved in the cutting-edge research on super-recognizers, conducted by Dr. David White at UNSW (University of New South Wales) Sydney.
1.    37According to the British Journal of Psychology, super-recognizers are “individuals who are extremely proficient at processing facial identity.”
2.    The Psychonomic Bulletin & Reviewstates, “The discovery of super-recognizers demonstrates that people can not only be much worse than average at face recognition, but also much better than average.”
                                              ii.     38Report findings
1.    Ms. Brayovic was also given a set of photographs depicting the two Sr. Lucys but was not told which corresponded to which. She was asked to identify how many people were in the photographs, using her super-recognizer abilities.
2.    Based on her analysis, she sorted the photos into pictures of the young Sr. Lucy, the pre-1967 Sr. Lucy, the 1967 Sr. Lucy, and the elderly Sr. Lucy.
3.    She further concluded that the young and pre-1967 Sr. Lucy were the same person while the 1967 and elderly Sr. Lucy were a different person.
4.    Lastly, she was given two videos of the elderly Sr. Lucy and stated that this woman was different than the pre-1967 Sr. Lucy depicted in the photos provided. Rather, it was the same person as the 1967 Sr.
Super-Recognizer’s Analysis: My instructions were the following: 
--to go through 13 known images, at my own pace, to familiarize myself with Subject A (0-18 years old) and Subject B (18-40 years old). 
Then, to go through 23 unknown images, which consisted of various individuals including Subject A, Subject B, Subject C (approx.. 40-60) and Subject D (60 + years old), one by one and rate whether I believed they were they same person as the known images (Subject A and Subject B) or not. Finally, to also rate my decision with A: High confidence, B: Medium confidence or C low confidence or whether I did not know if they were the same person.
III.           39Based on my extensive review I can determine the following points set forth below.
IV.           Conclusion on Images:
V.            The group of unknown images depict two different women.
VI.          1. Subject A (young Sr. Lucy) is the same person as Subject B (adult, pre-1967 Sr. Lucy)
2. Subject B is a different person than Subject C (1967 Sr. Lucy II)
3. Subject B is a different person than Subject D (elderly, post-1967 Sr. Lucy)
4. Subject C is the same person as Subject D
VII.         Ms. Brayovic was also asked to analyze the face of Sr. Lucy in two video excerpts. Ms. Brayovic was asked to examine the 1967 Sr. Lucy, shown between 18:45 and 21:46 of the following video: https://arquivos.rtp.pt/conteudos/a-irma-lucia/
VIII.       Next, she was asked to analyze the face of Sr. Lucy (the elderly, post-1967 Sr. Lucy) in this video, featured between :30 and 2:00: https://youtu.be/GQf2IaPF9V4?t=30
IX.          Conclusion on Video Excerpts:
X.            The video excerpts depict a different woman than the known Subject A/B (the real Sr. Lucy).

                                               i.     Conclusions
1.    Here we have facial analysis by someone who has been scientifically demonstrated to possess higher-than-average facial recognition abilities, which are not acquired through training.
2.    She, like all the other experts consulted, also confirms that there are two separate individuals depicted in the photographic records.

b.    40iPRoBe Facial Recognition Report
                                               i.     The iPRoBe Lab is based at Michigan State University and is headed by Dr. Arun Ross. 
1.    Dr. Ross is an established leader in biometrics and biometric recognition, which is the science of identification based on body measurements and characteristics. Using a thumbprint as an identifier is an example of biometrics.
a.    Dr. Ross has co-authored the standard textbook introduction to biometrics.
2.     The iPRoBe Lab has state-of-the-art facial recognition and biometric software. Sr. Lucy Truth submitted our photos of the two Sr. Lucys for analysis.
                                              ii.     41Report findings
1.    Preliminary clarification: 
a.    The young Sr. Lucy is Subject A.
b.    The adult, pre-1967 Sr. Lucy is Subject B.
c.     The 1967 Sr. Lucy is Subject C.
d.    The elderly Sr. Lucy is Subject D.
e.    If our hypothesis is correct, then Subject A and B is the real Sr. Lucy. Subject C and D is the impostor.
2.    42The computer found that Subject A and B are likelythe same individual.
3.    43Subject C and D are very likelyto be the same individual.
a.    This is notable because the results of the box plot and histogram are almost as high as one could get in identifying a match.
4.    44Subject B and D are likelydifferent individuals.
5.    45Interestingly, the computer was not able to establish a difference between Subject B and C.
a.    This perhaps raises a question about the identity of the 1967 Sr. Lucy.
6.    46Logically, however, there should be no problem:
a.    The computer recognizes that the pre-1967 Sr. Lucys are one individual.
b.    The post-1967 Sr. Lucys are also one individual.
c.     It also recognizes that the real Sr. Lucy is different than the elderly Sr. Lucy.
d.    Logically, it follows that the real Sr. Lucy must be different than the 1967 Sr. Lucy.
e.    Thus the ability to logically work through the evidence still vindicates our hypothesis.
f.     The problems in the computer’s analysis may consist in the quality and number of photographs used.
                                            iii.     47Conclusions
1.    The report still supports the thesis that we are dealing with two individuals, one before 1967 and one after.
2.    When combined with the other reports and pieces of evidence, the iPRoBe report adds more support to the reasonableness of our hypothesis: there are two Sr. Lucys.

c.    48Animetrics Facial Analysis Report
                                               i.     Animetrics is a leading developer in advanced facial recognition technology for the military, intelligence, and law enforcement.
1.    For the Sr. Lucy Truth analysis, Animetrics used their program Forensica GPS to process the images.
a.    After the Boston Marathon bombing, Forensica GPS was successfully able to analyze low-resolution camera stills of the bombers and identify them when the software used by the investigators failed to do so.
2.    For this report, only photos of the adult pre-1960 Sr. Lucy and the 1967 Sr. Lucy were submitted for analysis.
                                              ii.     49Report findings
1.    Facial analysis “strongly suggests that Subject A and Subject B are photographs from two different individuals.”
a.    Hence whereas the iPRoBe analysis was not able to distinguish between the two, the Animetrics analysis “strongly suggests” they are different.
2.    Specifically, nose length and philtrum length differ, which agrees with the findings of Lois Gibson, the forensic artist.
3.    The eyebrow shapes are significantly different enough for the software to consider the Sr. Lucys as two different individuals.
4.    Lastly, the report also notes the different shapes of the two Sr. Lucys’ mouths.
                                            iii.     50Conclusions
1.    The Animetrics report notes that its software does not use algorithms to account for age.
a.    However, as we have seen from other reports, the specific differences in appearance between the two Sr. Lucys are overwhelmingly elements that cannot be accounted for by the aging process or dental work.
2.    Like the iPRoBe analysis, the Animetrics report is one more independent study that supports the thesis of two Sr. Lucys. Both labs are well-established leaders in their field. 
a.    Despite the relatively young field of facial recognition science, the different labs support the Two Sister Lucys hypothesis.
d.    51Handwriting Analysis
                                               i.     Bart Baggett is a forensic document examiner and skilled authority in handwriting identification. He has examined over 14,000 documents for over 880 cases and is a court qualified expert witness in the field of questioned documents.
                                              ii.     52Report findings
1.    Mr. Baggett was given handwriting samples known to be written by the pre-1950 Sr. Lucy, specifically, photographs and scans of letters and excerpts from her Memoirs, dated between May 1941 and December 1955.
a.    He was also given signature samples from documents dating between 1927 to 1955.
2.    Baggett extensively compared these known writing samples with questioned documents, specifically:
a.    The 2000 text of the Third Secret released by the Vatican
b.    A letter written to Dr. Alcino Magelhaes, Sr. Lucy’s former dentist, dated December 27, 1969
c.     Excerpts from an unpublished, post-1967 manuscript by “Sr. Lucy” called O meu caminhoor in English, My Wayor My Pathway
d.    A copy of a letter to Fr. Umberto Pasquale, dated April 13, 1980
e.    A copy of signatures from “Sr. Lucy’s” Memoirs, dated 1967 and 1969
3.    53Baggett found that all post-1960 writing samples submitted were by another hand than the pre-1960 writings. He gives an extensive analysis, comparing letter formation, the angle of slants, etc. His analysis includes a consideration of the pens used as well as common characteristics of native Portuguese writing from the time period.
a.    More than this, he found that all the post-1960 writings areinternally consistent, meaning they were written by the same person.
b.    The findings of the handwriting analysis conclusively demonstrate that the same “Sr. Lucy” was writing between 1967 and 1980 at least.
4.    54The analysis that Baggett conducts on the Third Secret, however, is astounding. He finds that the handwriting is consistent with the samples of Sr. Lucy’s handwriting from the 1940s, specifically from the Third Memoir, wherein the First and Second Secrets are written.
a.    This suggests that the released Third Secret is an authentic text written in the real Sr. Lucy’s hand.
b.    Many problems still remain, specifically the matter of interpretation. The first two Secrets have an explanation from Sr. Lucy, but the Third Secret does not. It is only explained by Cardinals Sodano, Bertone, and Ratzinger, with whom “Sr. Lucy” agreed.
c.     This opens up the possibility of Antonio Socci’s “4thSecret of Fatima” hypothesis.
d.    It’s not the purpose of this presentation to draw out possible theological conclusions. We’re simply reporting the evidence.
                                            iii.     55Conclusions
1.    Putting aside the matter of the Third Secret text, we know from handwriting analysis that the post-1960 writings are definitely by a different hand than the pre-1960 Sr. Lucy.
2.    What is the most reasonable explanation for this difference except that there was another person posing as Sr. Lucy?
XI.           Conclusion
a.    56Summary of findings
                                               i.     All of these reports and analyses agree: there are at least two individuals, one certainly before and after 1967.
                                              ii.     All of these reports were conducted by experts and leaders in their respective fields, whose professional reputations are on the line.
                                             iii.     If the theory of two individuals were so forced or absurd, one would expect there to be a greater divergence in the reports. But we find nearly complete agreement.
1.    Not only that, but as we pointed out, several experts all independently pointed out the same differences between the two Sr. Lucys:
a.    Aging and dental work cannot account for all differences of appearance
2.    57We have further proof of the objectivity of these reports, since we also received results that were unexpected:
a.    The iPRoBe report was not entirely consistent even though the logic and overall findings support the existence of two Sr. Lucys.
b.    The handwriting analysis found the Vatican text of the Third Secret to be consistent with Sr. Lucy’s handwriting from the 1940s.
3.    In short, our results are exactly what one would expect if the most reasonable explanation for the changes in Sr. Lucy before and after 1960 was the existence of an impostor.
b.    58Some Objections commonly put forward
                                               i.     Will you not acknowledge the groundbreaking work of others in arguing for two Sr. Lucys?
1.    While the analyses of these individuals may contribute in important ways to the debate about Fatima, they nevertheless hinge on the authors’ personal analysis and gut feelings. When it comes to two Sr. Lucys, the analysis consists solely of side-by-side comparisons by laymen.
2.    The problem is that any other layman can come along and deny the “gut feelings” of these people with their own armchair analysis. Hence there is endless arguing about what “seems” right to each.
3.    Sr. Lucy Truth is about obtaining scientific, irrefutable evidence of the highest, most objective kind, which would even pass in a court of law.
a.    Our reports and efforts have produced precisely that.
b.    These findings cannot be dismissed as the looney reflections of a lone individual but are the findings of multiple experts and the state-of-the-art facial recognition technology, which all have independently come to the same conclusions.
                                              ii.     59One of the most common objections up this point has been: people’s personal opinions override any deference to scientific or expert authority. They say, “It seems to me…looks to me like… based on what I’ve read or heard…”
1.    Sr. Lucy Truth moves past all personal opinions, which leads to endless bickering. This is why we have commissioned multiplescientific and medical experts, people who are specifically trained and competent in their fields to conduct the analysis that we have asked for.
2.    They have all independently concluded the same thing: there are two individuals.
3.    It is impossible to explain these scientific findings on the theory that there was always one Sr. Lucy. No matter what a person may have read or heard, these historical changes and scientific facts must still be explained. One simply cannot account for the differences in every aspect of her life with the idea that there was only one Sr. Lucy.
a.    60We can take the line of Sherlock Holmes as our own: “When you have eliminated all which is impossible, then whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.”
                                             iii.     61Some dismiss the weight of the scientific evidence. Typically it comes in the form of a cynical tagline: “You get the results you pay for. Follow the money.”
1.    The scientists and experts commissioned have public, professional reputations on the line. They also are not personally invested in the matter.
2.    Many of them were given this material for analysis without any explanation of the desired result. They were simply asked to analyze and deliver the conclusions based on their own expertise or technological equipment.
a.    They all independently came to the same conclusion: there are two individuals.
3.    62The most critical answer, however, is that we received results that we did not expect or want, such as in the iPRoBe Lab or the handwriting analysis of the Third Secret.
a.    If we had simply paid off these experts, then all the results should be in our favor. The fact that not everything lines up as we had hoped or expected is a further proof of their objectivity.
                                             iv.     63Wouldn’t Sr. Lucy’s family or relatives or the nuns of her convent have known that she was an imposter?
1.    The relatives were never allowed to see Sr. Lucy face-to-face but always behind the grille and in the presence of other sisters of the community. Hence there was no opportunity for intimate or in-depth conversation.
2.    If it is true that the Church replaced Sr. Lucy with an impostor, if it is possible that the Church was overrun by Communists and Freemasons, is it not also reasonable to believe that these thugs acting in the name of the Church exerted pressure on Sr. Lucy’s relatives to remain silent and pretend as if nothing were happening?
a.    This isn’t proof that there was an impostor. It is simply stating that we should not be surprised that a cover up would involve tying up the loose ends with whatever threats or means necessary.
                                              v.     How could a cover up this extensive be maintained over decades?
1.    Part of what made the coverup easy to maintain for decades was the inability to share extensive photographs, videos, and samples of Sr. Lucy’s appearance and handwriting before and after the 1960s.
a.    With the advent of the internet and social media, spreading this information has become easy and instantaneous. For the first time in history, we can see for our own eyes how Sr. Lucy appeared, how she changed, as well as her handwriting.
b.    But imagine a person “seeing” Sr. Lucy in 1967 or in magazine publications afterwards. They wouldn’t know how she had appeared in the decades before. They would have nothing to compare her appearance with.
c.     Before instant communications and technology, Sr. Lucy could easily be hidden away in the convent at Coimbra for decades, as she was after the Fr. Fuentes interview. She was ordered to keep strict silence about the matter of Fatima and the Secret.
                                                                                                     i.     The Diocese of Coimbra’s 1959 note said: “Sister Lucy has nothing more to say on Fatima!” This was the last official word of the Church on Sr. Lucy and Fatima. 
1.    Even when the Third Secret was revealed in 2000, Sr. Lucy didn’t offer her interpretation. Cardinals Sodano, Bertone, and Ratzinger merely say she approved of their interpretation.
                                                                                                    ii.     John Haffert claimed that the Pope had authorized only persons who had already met Sr. Lucy to speak with her again; everyone else required the express permission of the Holy See.
                                                                                                   iii.     We know that the Mother Prioress of Coimbra, shortly after the Fr. Fuentes interview, wrote to Father Messias Dias Coelho, saying, “Do not ask [Sr. Lucy] to interpret what she has written or said. Ask this of the theologians, ask the hierarchy…”
                                                                                                   iv.     This silence on Fatima is reflected in her letters after the 1960s. She addresses the spiritual life, the Rosary, the life of the Church, everything else, always circling around the issue of Fatima.
1.    In a letter from 1970, she even says directly, “I must remain in silence.”
d.    As we mentioned earlier, Sr. Lucy’s relatives had no opportunity for intimate and in-depth conversation. In the 1992 interview of “Sr. Lucy,” there is no deep conversation but formulaic questions and answers that only serve to confirm the Vatican’s propaganda about Fatima since the 1960s and bolster John Paul II as the great hero of Fatima.
2.    But now with modern technology, the coverup is beginning to unravel. More people are able to educate themselves and discuss the matter. More and more minds are able to scrutinize the gaps and inconsistencies.
                                             vi.     64Why focus on this issue? Isn’t it so small compared to everything going on in the world and the Church today?
1.    Theologically, devotion to the Immaculate Heart, devotion to our Lady is vital in the life of every Catholic. Fatima came to establish devotion to the Immaculate Heart as a remedy for the calamities our Lady revealed to the seers: firstly, the vision of Hell, and secondly, the wars, persecutions, and famines that would occur in the 20thcentury.
2.    If one studies the history of the 20thcentury from a supernatural perspective, Fatima is at the heart of it. It touches directly upon the two World Wars, the Cold War, and the spread of Communism. It coincided with the Bolshevik Revolution and the final overturning of European Christendom in World War I. It predicted the start of World War II if Our Lady was ignored, and finally, it pointed towards the revolution within the Church herself with Vatican II. 
3.    Our Lady came to Sr. Lucy in 1929 specifically to ask for the Consecration of Russia as if this were the most urgent matter. “The moment has come…” she said. We know from history what happened in those following years under Stalin’s satanic regime.
4.    65Sr. Lucy, trembling and sad, confirmed to Fr. Fuentes that 1960 would be a pivotal turning point in the history of the world and the Church since our Lady’s requests for the Consecration of Russia had not been heeded. She was silenced, and Fr. Fuentes was disavowed. 
5.    The problems we spoke of earlier: the bizarre change in Sr. Lucy, the catastrophic changes in the Church, and all of this tied up with the dilution of Fatima over decades of propaganda and silence by the highest Church authorities. These are problems at the heart of the Church that no observant or zealous Catholic can ignore! They strike at the heart of the Faith and have had devastating consequences on the lives of millions of Catholics.
a.    We must answer the question: what is the most reasonable explanation for them?
b.    The identity of Sr. Lucy is emerging as a key to the answer.
6.    Lastly, the problem of Sr. Lucy’s identity and the twisting of Fatima cannot but raise the question of Sedevacantism. Even conservative, mainstream Church theologians and writers take the issue seriously and respond to it. 
c.    66Support for the Sister Lucy Truth Project
                                               i.     This project depends entirely on the generosity of its donors.To demonstrate our good will and seriousness, Sr. Lucy Truth was officially established as a tax-exempt, nonprofit organization. All donations are reserved for its stated goals.
                                              ii.     More reports are to be commissioned. Some are in the process of being finalized. Some experts still require payment for their services.
                                             iii.     The next step in the first phase of accumulating expert and scientific analysis is to obtain DNA samples of the impostor Sr. Lucy and her relatives. This should prove to be definitive.
1.    This will require extensive planning:
a.    Hiring of investigators for research and planning purposes
b.    Research into locations
c.     Travel expenses
d.    Seeking Sr. Lucy’s relatives and receiving permission to participate
e.    Obtaining the samples
f.     Hiring DNA analysts and commissioning reports
g.    Formatting the reports for publishing on our website and social media
2.    The estimated cost is $15,000 at this point.
3.    Without your generosity, this task is simply impossible.
                                             iv.     67If you believe this work is valuable and important, the three best thingsyou can do to support the project:
1.    Prayer
2.    Sharingthe news of the project through word of mouth, emails, and social media.
a.    Online search algorithms tend to hide this sort of material which is quickly labelled “conspiratorial.”
b.    But social media cannot prevent people from actively sharing the links to the website.
c.     Actually sharing the links, through copying and pasting, emails, social media, is the best way to spread the news online.
3.    Financial donations
a.    These are tax-deductible.
b.    Even if you cannot make a donation, please spread the word, share the links through email and social media and word of mouth.
d.    68Closing thanks and acknowledgments


  1. Where is the Fatima Center, Church Militant, The Remnant, Chris Ferrara, Mike Church, etc, etc, etc....The information you have gathered on Sister Lucy or rather. should I say the fake Sister Lucy confirms the nefarious actions of those posing as Bishops and Cardinals in the most sensitive posts at the Vatican. Father Luigi Villa was given a mandate by St Padre Pio to expose Freemasonry at the HIGHEST levels of the church. Although Our Lord promised that the gates of hell shall not prevail against His Church, these men who have chosen not serve Our Lord have certainly made mess of things.

  2. Your perseverence, research, scholarship devotion and search for the truth are deeply appreciated Dr. Chojnowski. Thank you so much. Please God it will lead to some action being taken to find out what really happened to Sr. Lucy.

  3. Is it possible to have a pdf of this summary please?

  4. The first time I saw a photograph of the post 1960's Sr. Lucy was on the cover of an older edition of the book, Fatima in Lucy's Own Words. I was floored and unable to understand the radical transformation in her appearance. Others probably felt the same way but were too intimidated to speak up. After all, there seemed to be a universal tacit agreement that she was the real McCoy.

    Dr. Chojnowski, your investigation has been thorough, diligent and extremely attentive to details. It proves without a doubt that there are indeed two Sisters Lucy. Have those at The Fatima Center, who pride themselves on the "whole truth about Fatima", done anything to help with the investigation, or are they continuing as if it doesn't exist?

  5. You have done a fantastic job. So good, that the liars cannot even attempt a defence.

  6. This is definitely the "elephant in the room" now, as you stated elsewhere, and impossible to deny without denying overwhelming evidence. I think the Imposter Sr Lucia was put in place by the same diabolical cabal that hijacked the Oct. 1958 papal conclave. See whitesmoke1958.com, including the video documentary.

  7. Your fantastic work proves (1) what one man defending truth can accomplish; (2) with the help of none other than the Mother of God herself and her Son.
    Dr C, you + the BVMary constitute a majority of one. Still crickets from the professional Fatima crowd. Guess they are too busy trying to Unite the Clans while ignoring this true elephant in the room. Predict that is going nowhere. Why? Not grounded in Truth but "Recognize and Resist" (R&R)...whatever that means. Sounds like a good Protestant position and/or attitude. True Catholic it is....NOT! Your work is going to smoke out a lot of "Faithful Catholics" God Bless You and your mission of Truth. PS: I second the PDF suggestion. It lends itself to wider distribution.

  8. Gary Giuffre, who has done the most research into the dubious 1958 papal conclave, has a new interview, “The vitiated conclave of 1958 – enabling act for the eclipse of the Church” – Part II, at isoc.ws

  9. Here is pdf. link if you would like to use it:


  10. Unbelievable, even with naked eyes and not even required much intelligence, everybody can see those two persons are totally different from each other. Their faces, their teeth, their smiles, their eyes and the shape of the faces proved all. We don't even need any scientists reports to know those two women are not the same. But the reports and scientists were called in to prove for those who always required "proofs" in order for them to believe anything. God already had the word for those who refused to believe the truth.

  11. Hi,
    I entertained this claim. After all, I am skeptical about many of the Churches proper handing of Fatima. However, I decided to get that aging app that ages you or makes you younger. I put pictures of young Lucy in it and old Lucy. They young to old experiment didn’t work well. However, when I did the same old Lucy (the pictures thats some people are saying fake) I got back a young face that looks the same as her convent years.


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?

Tragic Disappearance of the Real Sister Lucy dos Santos Foretold to Jacinta, Right Before She Died, by the Blessed Virgin Mary. Contrary to being Safely Stowed in a Convent, Sister Lucy's Life was Always Under Threat.

The Shepherd is Struck and the Sheep Run Towards the Wolf's Lair? Is the Report About the Defection of the General Bursar of the SSPX, Fr. Suarez, True? Does Any One Have More Information About this Report? They Sent a Limousine For Archbishop Lefebvre and He DID NOT Get In. Was a Phone Call From Francis All that Was Necessary?