The Neutral Report that Christine Niles points to is actually further evidence that Sister Lucy I and Sister Lucy II are DIFFERENT persons. Check out the ratings system they used and the details of the discussions that Sister Lucy Truth had with them concerning their methodology.

https://b7a5p3z2.rocketcdn.me/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/Ideal-Innovations-Report.pdf

Here is our introduction to the report and our questions concerning the methodology of Ideal Innovations:

SISTER LUCY TRUTH IDEAL INNOVATIONS, INC. (I3) REPORT

Biometrics expert affirms that 1967 and post-1967 “Sr. Lucy” are the same person with little or no evident connection between the pre-1967 Lucy and the “Lucy” who appeared in 1967

In July 2021, Sister Lucy Truth (SLT) commissioned a facial analysis report from Ideal Innovations Incorporated (I3), an industry leader in facial examination, training, and biometrics and a contractor with the FBI and the Defense Forensic Science Center, which offers full-service forensic support for the US Army and Department of Defense. Although SLT provided its entire photo gallery, I3’s experts selected and analyzed only a small range of those photos to determine if any identity between the pre- 1967 Sr. Lucy and both the 1967 and post-1967 “Sr. Lucy” could be determined.

In our discussions, I3 admitted several notable points that the reader should keep in mind when going through this report:

1.

2.

They explicitly informed SLT that they do not use measurements nor proportions in making comparisons. This surprised SLT since similar reports from other experts have all used measurements and proportions.

I3 could not explain exactly what is meant by their scaling system of +2, +1, 0, etc. These numbers do not represent percentages. +2 essentially means “more similar” than +1. 0 means observations can support neither that it is the same nor a different person.

Based on I3’s facial recognition analysis, several important results emerged:

1. When comparing photos from subjects A (young Sr. Lucy) to B (Dorothean Sr. Lucy) and B to C

   (1967 “Sr. Lucy”), I3 was able to conclude only a slight similarity of +1.

2. Finally, and critically, observations support that the 1967 “Sr. Lucy” and post-1967 elderly “Sr.

   Lucy” are the same person (+2 result).

A follow-up analysis with additional images was conducted between subject B and subjects C and D (elderly, post-1967 “Sr. Lucy”). The conclusion was neutral at best: all comparisons registered a scale result of 0 similarity. This result implicitly indicates that there were indeed two Lucys, for if they were the same individual throughout, one should expect a similarity of +2 or greater as was found when comparing the 1967 “Lucy” with the elderly “Lucy.”

While not in accord with the results of our other expert reports, the analysis remains at best neutral and agnostic about the identity of the two Sr. Lucys. This neutral report therefore does not directly contradict the previous scientific reports that assert that there were two Lucys. The clear identity that did emerge was between the 1967 “Lucy” and post-1967, elderly “Lucy,” which is in accord with our previous findings that from 1967 onwards there was one, not multiple, impostor Lucys. SLT presents the full report here for the sake of objectivity and as further evidence of our good will, demonstrating that the results of these expert findings were independently produced and not dictated by SLT. Our investigation of the issue continues with even greater urgency.