This “imposter Lucy” news should actually be talked about more. We all know how it works: if someone does not comply to “higher authority” in some evil, get rid of them. Murder them, if it can be done. I do agree that Ratzinger is on his deathbed pretty soon since he’s already in his 90’s- and he obviously knows what happened to that poor seer Nun of Fatima.

Where is the real Sister Lucy?

That's the one thing I'm not 100% convinced about.  I haven't seen any evidence that Ratzinger (or even Wojtyla) knew about what happened to Sister Lucy.  That situation was handled during Roncalli or Montini's "papacy" when those two were still probably not privy to the dirtiest stuff going on.

I have zero doubt that Sister Lucy was replaced.  I think there's a 90% chance she was murdered, and a 10% chance she just passed away and they stuck someone else in there so they could manipulate the narrative.  I'll try to find that e-mail received by the Dimond Brothers.  But I don't think there's any evidence that Ratzinger and Wojtyla were insiders.

https://schismatic-home-aloner.com/consecration-russia-fatima-lucy/We have spoken with this woman at length; she is a traditional Catholic convert, and we believe that she is telling the truth.  But regardless of whether one accepts this testimony or not, the fact is that there was an impostor Sr. Lucy.  There is no doubt about this; the evidence is undeniable.  The Vatican conveniently kept her alive until 97 years old, until it had revealed the phony third secret and she had finished playing her part, then a few years later she “died” and her cell was ordered sealed by “Cardinal” Ratzinger.
There are so many souls who have dismissed the evidence against the Vatican II apostasy and the New Mass simply because they saw that “Sr. Lucy” accepted them.  We always informed them that they cannot dismiss facts of the Faith based on what they think another person believes.

I think I remember he denounced people who believed Sr Lucy was swapped as crazy in his debate with John Lane or some other place. I could be mistaken.

12. Why replace Sr. Lucy when the Vatican could simply silence her?
For the simple reason that they could not silence the true seer of Fatima. Even more so, given the Vatican’s 40 years of silence following 1960 and its relentless propaganda to water Fatima down into a vague and generic call to holiness, prayers, and penance, they not only needed the silence of Sr. Lucy, they needed her undivided support. Her writings from after 1960 bear this point out. She called for complete obedience to the postconciliar popes. Her adulation of these popes culminated in her 1992/1993 interviews and her supposed approval of the interpretation of the Third Secret given in 2000, all of which make the Third Secret about John Paul II, the great hero of Fatima.
They could not silence the seer. Before 1960, she repeatedly insisted in her letters that obedience to Our Lord and Our Lady compelled her to speak. They could not silence the seer who did not hesitate to criticize each preconciliar pope who failed to heed Our Lord and Lady’s requests. In 1928 she wrote how “Our Lord is profoundly displeased.” In 1929 she let it be known that the Holy Fathers themselves would fail Our Lord as the king of France had failed Him. In a 1935 letter to Fr. José Bernardo Gonçalves, Sr. Lucy’s confessor, she wrote,
Regarding the matter of Russia, I think that it would please Our Lord very much if you worked to make the Holy Father comply with His wishes.
When Fr. Gonçalves wrote back in 1936 asking whether it was still necessary to insist on this point, she answered,
Believe me, if it were not for the fear of displeasing Our Good Lord because of my lack of clarity and sincerity, I would never have decided to speak so clearly.
And like a gadfly, she continued to repeat and proclaim the renewed requests of Our Lord and Our Lady in letters all through the years between 1940 to 1952 and for the final time in 1957. At the end of 1957, she said in her interview with Fr. Fuentes,
Believe me, Father, God will chastise the world and this will be in a terrible manner. 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.
Not only was Sr. Lucy silenced, but Fr. Fuentes was publicly disavowed. The next bishop of Leiria, Msgr. João Pereira Venâncio, said in 1960 regarding the Third Secret: “I can say nothing.” Despite Msgr. Venâncio’s final attempt in a letter of May 17, 1960 to unite all the bishops of the world in preparation for the Consecration of Russia, John XXIII ignored it.
From then on, not only silence from Sr. Lucy, but any further word from her was in total agreement with whatever the Church hierarchy wished to say about Fatima and the Third Secret. Not only was the Vatican able to finally silence the seer who refused to remain silent, but they could have her agree with any change to the Fatima message they saw fit to promote. How do we explain this complete change in Sr. Lucy’s behavior, which occurred precisely after her final interview was published in 1959?

I think I remember he denounced people who believed Sr Lucy was swapped as crazy in his debate with John Lane or some other place. I could be mistaken.