This is the dumbest thing I have heard since:

https://www.tldm.org/news3/impostor.htm

https://repository.law.umich.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=&httpsredir=1&article=1261&context=mlr

.
From the linked site:
.
Facial recognition technology—that is, computer programs that can identify a person based on a photograph or video still—may be able to pick up where other types of forensic evidence leave off. Imagine that Darrin had been caught on film breaking into any one of the three homes he was ultimately found to have entered. Simply introducing a still image from this video in court would suffer from some of the same deficiencies as DNA evidence, because a jury would be equally unable to distinguish Darrin Fernandez from Damien Fernandez. But a computer program can tell the difference; facial recognition technology can even distinguish between identical twins.¹⁵ Had Darrin been caught on film, facial recognition evidence might have positively identified him and saved significant prosecutorial and judicial resources.¹⁶
Facial recognition technology is currently in widespread use and has significant private and governmental applications.¹⁷ The technology is already used to identify suspects and solve crimes.¹⁸ As higher-quality cameras become more cost effective and facial recognition algorithms become more accurate,¹⁹ law enforcement agencies will seek to use facial recognition evidence for more than just criminal investigation.²⁰ After all, “[some] law enforcement agencies estimate that up to a quarter of complaint cases contain face images of the suspect or an accomplice. This number is significantly higher than for latent fingerprints or DNA samples.”²¹ Prosecutorial use is therefore imminent.
But major hurdles still stand between facial recognition evidence and the courtroom. For instance, under the Federal Rules of Evidence, scientific evidence must be reliable and may require expert testimony to lay a sufficient foundation.²² Because facial recognition evidence is relatively new, criminal defendants will likely challenge its reliability.²³
In addition to challenging facial recognition evidence under the rules of evidence, criminal defendants may also invoke their constitutional right under the Confrontation Clause to keep such evidence out of court. This is especially likely given the Supreme Court’s recent strengthening of the protections provided by the Confrontation Clause, a major shift that began with Crawford v. Washington²⁴ in 2004.²⁵

Exactly!  That is why I remain somewhat baffled by Sean's comment.  What exactly does he mean by it?  Perhaps, I'm just too dumb to figure it out on my own! :)

Klas...i thought Sean was referring to doing the same thing on Paul VI.  Isn't that what his link is about? A Paul VI double?

.
It would seem that those who see this Sister Lucia analysis as somehow equivalent to the Paul VI question are stuck in the 60's.
.
Facial recognition technology is light years ahead today compared to the time of Paul VI. It's apples and oranges.
.
Why would anyone need to drive a car on a freeway, when top speed is only 40 mph? 
(For a Model T, with 20 hp, perhaps --- not for a Chevy Corvette at 215 mph and 1,000 hp.) 
.

I never thought of that.  That would certainly seem a good way of looking at it, although I had always thought that the suggestion of an imposter for Paul VI was not really plausible whereas the suggestion of an imposter for Sr. Lucia always seemed to me to be not only plausible, but quite probable.

Hmm...now I think I took his comment the wrong way...lol.  

I thought he was saying that investigating the Paul VI impostor was dumb, but he did say he thought "this" was the dumbest thing "since" (and then he posted the Paul VI impostor link). So it does seem as if he is saying the topic of the OP is what is dumb.  I don't understand how investigating rather than just theorizing "this" is dumb.

So I guess that leaves us both still wondering what he meant.   8)

Hmm...now I think I took his comment the wrong way...lol.  

I thought he was saying that investigating the Paul VI impostor was dumb, but he did say he thought "this" was the dumbest thing "since" (and then he posted the Paul VI impostor link). So it does seem as if he is saying the topic of the OP is what is dumb.  I don't understand how investigating rather than just theorizing "this" is dumb.

So I guess that leaves us both still wondering what he meant.   8)

Ha!  That's funny.  Actually, I didn't want to ask Sean what he meant, but I noticed that after his comment the thread just sat dead in the water for 3 days and I didn't want it to fade into oblivion so at the risk of making myself look foolish, I thought I should ask him.  I notice he still hasn't responded!

New Information:

https://radtradthomist.chojnowski.me/2018/10/there-was-imposter-on-day-of-miracle-of.html

There WAS an Imposter. On the Day of the Miracle of the Sun, We Publish Our First of Many Expert Reports. A Plastic Surgeon's Judgment on the Case of the Two Sister Lucys.

October 12, 2018

"On the 101st anniversary of Our Lady of Fatima, we are presenting one expert report on the issue of an imposter Sister Lucia. Hopefully, the release of this report demonstrates that we are approaching this issue very seriously and have engaged some of the top doctors, scientists, and companies in the world. There will be much more to come, and we need your support now more than ever. The investigation is intensifying.

 As seen in this report (and others) the analysis of the photographic images refers to Subject A (0-18 years old), Subject B (20-40 years), Subject C (60 years old), and Subject D (75 years+). Attached is an example of a photograph from each Subject. There are the four groups we divided the images into to organize the analysis. We are currently of the opinion that Subject A and Subject B are the same individual. We are also relatively confident (though not certain) that Subject C and Subject D are the same individual. As Dr. Garcia notes, we are confident Subject A/B depict a different individual than the individual(s) depicted in Subject C/D. Much more analysis to come!

 A few highlights of Dr. Garcia's analysis:

• Dr. Garcia possesses a degree in art history and is of Hispanic descent giving him a unique background to assess this question.
• Dr. Garcia is the individual who first identified the presence of a fake image that has been previously discussed on this site.
• Dr. Garcia thinks that multiple items suggest a different individual but the strongest evidence is the chin and eyelids. He also thinks the noses are different.

Here is Dr. Garcia's Report: ...

See link above for this breaking story.