The reason that it hasn't been done so far is because facial recognition is not all it is hyped up to be.Put the faces of the two Sister Lucys on collectible cards. Don't say which is which. Indicate that one is legit and worth $1,000,000, the other is a fake and worth nothing. Also that any secondary pictures of the real Lucy will bring 2 million, while the other Lucy is worthless. 100% of people will be able to identify the correct one 100% of the time in every single picture.
It doesn't work as it ought.
Sister Lucy Facial Recognition Analysis Going on Right Now at 3pm Pacific Time (http://radtradthomist.chojnowski.me/2018/06/sister-lucy-facial-recognition-analysis.html)(June 28th). It is a complex and exact process. I will let you know when I know. (http://radtradthomist.chojnowski.me/2018/06/sister-lucy-facial-recognition-analysis.html)(http://radtradthomist.chojnowski.me/2018/06/sister-lucy-facial-recognition-analysis.html)
Major multi-party coverup to pull this off..
And the motive may be found here...
Hint: communism is dead according to the seer at Fatima
https://youtu.be/iJGBbngR9Uk (https://youtu.be/iJGBbngR9Uk)
So, when do we hear the results? Personally, I lean toward the latter pictures being fakes. Possibly, Sr. Lucy's announced death was correct. Many cloistered religious live to ripe old age, but the photo with JPII? Not a chance! Dentures do not change a person's entire facial structure! They can change the appearance of the jaw, lips, and jowls, but forehead and eyebrows? Cheekbones? Shoulders and chest? Thickness of the neck? Shape of the entire head?.
Hmmm, where can I get a set of these miracle chompers? Come the Chastisement, I might need to evade high tech body recognition technology!
Further on, Sister Lucia recounts unpublished details [about the Message of Fatima], as when, referring to World War I, Mary said: "The war is about to end but if mankind does not cease to offend God, a worse one will begin during Pius XI's pontificate."Here we really have something new. In this simple paragraph it is stated that Our Lady would have approved Judaism as it was professed in Germany up until World War II. And she would have told Catholics that such Judaism would be a legitimate successor of Our Lord and the Apostles. Hence, it is strongly insinuated that we Catholics should all understand that “salvation comes from the Jews.”
The visionary explained that history witnessed "the outbreak of an atheist war against the faith, against God, and against the People of God. A war that sought to exterminate Judaism from which Jesus Christ, the Virgin and the Apostles came, who transmitted to us the Word of God and the gifts of faith, hope and charity, a people chosen by God, chosen from the beginning: "Salvation comes from the Jews."
| (https://www.traditioninaction.org/bev/bevimages/bv076_SisterLucy_Computer.jpg) Sister Lucy II, a contemplative adapted to the modern world. Did Our Lady really praise Judaism? |
| (https://www.traditioninaction.org/bev/bevimages/bv076_Ratzinger_Fatimamessage.jpg) Card. Ratzinger releasing the supposed third secret in June 2000 |
“I know that you are the children of Abraham: but you seek to kill me, because the word has no place in you. I speak that which I have seen with my Father: and you do the things that you have seen with your father.Judaism as a religion is the legitimate heir of the Jews described by Our Lord in this passage. That is why Judaism persecuted the Church from her very beginning, was the ferment of all heresies, and directed the conspiracy to destroy Christendom and the Catholic Church from the Middle Age to our days.
“They answered and said to Him: Abraham is our father. Jesus said to them: If you be the children of Abraham, do the works of Abraham. But now you seek to kill me, a man who have spoken the truth to you, which I have heard from God. This Abraham did not.
“You do the works of your father. They said therefore to Him: We are not born of fornication: we have one Father, even God.
“Jesus therefore said to them: If God were your Father, your would indeed love me. For I proceeded and came from God: for I came not of myself, but He sent Me.
“Why do you not know My speech? Because you cannot hear My word. You are of your father, the Devil, and the desires of your father you will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and he stood not in the truth: because truth is not in him. When he speaks a lie, he speaks of his own: for he is a liar, and the father thereof.
“But if I say the truth, you believe me not. Which of you shall convince me of sin? If I say the truth to you, why do you not believe me?
“He that is of God hears the words of God. Therefore you hear them not, because you are not of God (John 8: 37-47).
NEWS: June 6, 2006Bird’s Eye View of the News
Atila Sinke GuimarãesFirst, regarding the race, the attack of nαzιsm against the Jews certainly was an atrocious and condemnable thing. But I don’t understand how it is essentially different from the genocide the Turks made against the Armenians in 1915, or the Russians carried out against the Ukrainians in the early 1930s. Or for that matter, the mass-murder America released on the Japanese people in Hiroshima and Nagasaki or the Germans in Dresden. Above all, if Our Lady was concerned about large numbers of people being unjustly killed, why didn’t she complain about the millions of innocent babies murdered by their own mothers in abortions? So, even if the alleged number of six million Jews killed by the nαzιs were real, and I don’t believe it is, it would not explain why Our Lady would refer only to it if she were moved by humanitarian reasons.
.Disinformation from a tortured soul. Modern pagan scientism must be refuted, and true empirical science employed. The science in this technology will prove Sister Lucy II is not the same person as the Lucia of Fatima.
Well, one thing's for SURE. If the Report is "Scientific" then the flat-earthers won't believe it.
For them, anything "scientific" must be denounced from the opening gate.
When Fr. Gruner attended the SSPX Winona Ordinations around 2009, afterwards, he spoke to an informal group on the grounds of the seminary.Fr. Paul Kramer may have some insight into all of this. His email is paulkramer0@gmail.com
The "Two Sister Lucy's" topic came up and Fr. Gruner was overheard to say, that he refused to publish anything on the theory because it would scandalize his Novus ordo benefactors.
This was the first time I started to doubt the credibility of the self-proclaimed "Fatima Priest".
It would be interesting to know if the SSPX has taken over Fr. Gruner's CFN newspaper and the Fatima Center?.
Many SSPX associates (Fr. Albert, Fr. Philipson, etc) have been seen "on stage" at the latter recently.
Of course, if it's true, why would Bp, Fellay want to keep it secret? I think we know the answer.
When Fr. Gruner attended the SSPX Winona Ordinations around 2009, afterwards, he spoke to an informal group on the grounds of the seminary.Interesting. Perhaps Father Gruner felt threatened by his NO benefactors. Perhaps he crossed them and that resulted in his death.
The "Two Sister Lucy's" topic came up and Fr. Gruner was overheard to say, that he refused to publish anything on the theory because it would scandalize his Novus ordo benefactors.
This was the first time I started to doubt the credibility of the self-proclaimed "Fatima Priest".
It would be interesting to know if the SSPX has taken over Fr. Gruner's CFN newspaper and the Fatima Center?.
Many SSPX associates (Fr. Albert, Fr. Philipson, etc) have been seen "on stage" at the latter recently.
Of course, if it's true, why would Bp, Fellay want to keep it secret? I think we know the answer.
It's mostly sedevacantists who want to prove that there was a fake Sister Lucy (hence the articles from sede websites featured on this thread). They have a specific reason for doing so.
It's mostly sedevacantists who want to prove that there was a fake Sister Lucy (hence the articles from sede websites featured on this thread). They have a specific reason for doing so.I take it that you will be one of those who will not believe the results then Meg?
Meg, that's a stupid comment. This has nothing to do with sedevacantism and it has everything to do with THE TRUTH, which you apparently can't handle.
http://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=you+can%27t+handle+the+truth&view=detail&mid=F5D77DD5FE8EA81AB4EAF5D77DD5FE8EA81AB4EA&FORM=VIRE (http://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=you+can%27t+handle+the+truth&view=detail&mid=F5D77DD5FE8EA81AB4EAF5D77DD5FE8EA81AB4EA&FORM=VIRE)
Any group with an agenda will spin any story to suit their agenda. So what? Those of us catholics whose "agenda" is the Our Lady's Fatima message (only) are interested in the truth of the fake Sr Lucy's.
Further, the idea that Pope Paul VI had a body double is irrelevant to sedevacantism. Either Paul VI was the pope or not. They say he wasn't the pope, so why do they care if he had a body double? Many presidents around the world have a body double, for security reasons...
We have Our Lady's message at Fatima regardless of whether or not there's been a fake Sr. Lucy. My concern is that the sedes are only concerned about the "real vs. fake" to suit an agenda.
2,400 Picture Comparisons
I will not yet reveal the names of the investigators, the names of the companies involved, or the names of the programs being used.
sophisticated software technicians
work for money to please their customers.
Whatever the "comprehensive and definite report" may say, the pictures used must be published, as well as the numerical results of every single comparison.
Otherwise the whole thing is worthless.
...
I won't trust any report, if I can't compare their machine-comparison-results with my own human assessment.
radtradthomist.chojnowski.me (http://radtradthomist.chojnowski.me/2018/08/fraud-facial-recognition-technology.html)
That is roughly 50 pictures.
Whatever the "comprehensive and definite report" may say, the pictures used must be published, as well as the numerical results of every single comparison.
Otherwise the whole thing is worthless.
work for money to please their customers.
I won't trust any report, if I can't compare their machine-comparison-results with my own human assessment.
radtradthomist.chojnowski.me (http://radtradthomist.chojnowski.me/2018/08/fraud-facial-recognition-technology.html)
What is Chojnowski's reason for doing the investigation in the first place? Isn't he a sede?Who gives a crap? Why are you so scared of sedes? Just ignore them.
Who gives a crap? Why are you so scared of sedes? Just ignore them.
He says that the full comprehensive report will be released. As for trusting it, if people have expertise in the area that has a high degree of credibility, then I'll take their results over my own amateur assessment.
In hard science results must be reproducible to enable verification by other experts. Data, methods and algorithms have to be published. As long as these aren't published, the conclusions remain dubious.
I'm sure that their methods are based on known and trusted algorithms, and the application thereof will be indicated in the final report. You shoot from the hip way too early, which suggests that you have some emotional problem with the conclusion. Wait til the report comes out before running your (virtual) mouth.
I'm allowed to voice my concerns here, Pax. If you don't like it, just ignore me.Not trying to stop you, just trying to moderate you.
This is the dumbest thing I have heard since:What exactly do you mean Sean? That Chojnowski's facial recognition investigation is just a big waste of time and money?
https://www.tldm.org/news3/impostor.htm
.
https://repository.law.umich.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=&httpsredir=1&article=1261&context=mlr (https://repository.law.umich.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=&httpsredir=1&article=1261&context=mlr)
.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! :)
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?
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?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.
Facial recognition technology is light years ahead today compared to the time of [...]
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.
Hmm...now I think I took his comment the wrong way...lol.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!
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)
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.(https://radtradthomist.chojnowski.me/2018/10/there-was-imposter-on-day-of-miracle-of.html)
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. (https://radtradthomist.chojnowski.me/2018/10/there-was-imposter-on-day-of-miracle-of.html)
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:Here is Dr. Garcia's Report: ...
- 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.