|
|
According to this forensic math/facial recognition report prepared by Dr. Robert J. Bennett the chances of Lucy I being Lucy II are one in 13 million!
https://sisterlucytruth.org/forensicmathreport/ (https://sisterlucytruth.org/forensicmathreport/)
https://sisterlucytruth.org/dr-bennett-facial-recognition-report/ (https://sisterlucytruth.org/dr-bennett-facial-recognition-report/)
(Robert J. Bennett, Ph.D., holds a doctorate in General Relativity from Stevens Institute of Technology. He served as a physics instructor at Manhattan College and Bergen Community College from 1967-1983, and is presently doing private tutoring in physics and mathematics. He has served as a consultant for the entire Galileo Was Wrong: The Church Was Right project.)
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?
Q. So what do you think happened to the real Sr. Lucy? A. They clearly eliminated her at some point. Whenever that may have occurred, there is no doubt that the woman playing the part of “Sr. Lucy” since Vatican II was not the real one. Readers can take this for what it is worth (and it is not essential in any way to the facts above which prove that there was indeed an impostor Sr. Lucy), but a few years back we received a very disturbing letter. We received a letter from a woman (a traditional Catholic convert) whose family was involved in the higher-echelons of the Illuminati and Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ. We also spoke to this woman both before and after she sent it. There was much more in the letter and in the telephone conversations that added context and creditability to her claim, but we can only give a portion of the letter below. As hard as this may be to believe, we really did receive the following letter and speak at length with this woman (she asked that we withhold her name for obvious reasons):Quote“Dear Brothers of Holy Family Monastery… As I told you on the phone I have some very dark relatives…[a world famous Freemason] is the brother of [x- name removed to preserve anonymity of author] who was married to my Grand Aunt. All of my relatives on my mother’s side were 33rd degree Illuminati Freemasons. My Grandparents were in Eastern Star… I know I must sound like a screaming weirdo by now. I am not… When I was five my Mother hosted a gathering. There are many things that went on that are too gruesome to put in print about these gatherings. They are basically sacrificing to satan to put it briefly. I had a new baby brother namedWe 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.
- … My mother didn’t know ahead of time [that x] was to be part of the ‘ceremonies’. They were going to put him in what looked like a large brass wok [and torture him] in order to tell the future. …[thankfully, this didn’t happen because of intervening events]… [But] One of the things that was said that awful day was they had just killed sister Lucy (I thought they were talking about a sister I didn’t know I had that they had killed). When I asked they said ‘No stupid…she’s a nun’ It only made sense years later what this meant. It was 1958, late Oct when this happened. [I remember because my brother had just been born]. I know that I sound like a mad woman but it is the truth…”[/font][/color]
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.
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.As people, we know those we have met well. We can even say we know them “by heart” and even “by their faces and voice.”
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.
Has Dr. Sungenis said anything about this issue? I imagine if Dr. Bennet vouched for it, that would have a lot of credibility for him.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.
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.Thank you for posting this. As much as I distrust the Dimond brothers, the woman's story has the ring of truth to it as it is consistent with other reports of survivors of satanic abuse (as detailed on the website Survivors of Masonic Abuse and Ritual Torture or S.M.A.R.T.).
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.
Thank you for posting this. As much as I distrust the Dimond brothers, the woman's story has the ring of truth to it as it is consistent with other reports of survivors of satanic abuse (as detailed on the website Survivors of Masonic Abuse and Ritual Torture or S.M.A.R.T.).
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.
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.I believe I read an article on the Sister Lucy Truth website that they are trying to track down as many photos of Sr. Lucy as they can get their hands on, and over as much time as they can, to try to pin-point at what point in time she starts looking like a different person. I believe they concluded by saying there is about a decade in her life in which she was completely secluded and no photographs are available, at the end of which time the faker came out. I believe that decade was during the 1950s, and it was only in the 1960s when she came out and started appearing to the world again ... having had an amazing amount of "plastic surgery" in the meantime. ::)
Where is the real Sister Lucy?
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 (https://sisterlucytruth.org/the-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 (https://sisterlucytruth.org/the-1992-1993-interviews/) 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?
So this Ph.D. whom he otherwise trusts is "crazy"? See, I have no use for this attitude ... if that's how he phrased it. I get looking at the evidence and concluding that it's nonsense, but I've never gotten the whole dismiss something as "crazy" because it SOUNDS crazy. God knows that much craizier things may have taken place than we can imagine. That may also be why he's rejected Flat Earth, because it "sounds" or "seems" crazy or nuts, because everybody has been so thoroughly programmed to believing that it's nut, with "Flat Earther" having been implanted in the popular parlance as a synonym for nutcase.No need for the wild conjectures about Sungenis Lad -- and at this point without some sort of solid evidence that's all they are -- conjectures which end up caricaturing Sungenis as some sort of nut himself. I don't know of anyone on this forum who has actually taken as much time and effort as Sungenis to try to analyze the FE/G debate and place his lengthy analysis on public display unless perhaps you yourself have. You may not agree with his conclusions or how he went about arriving at them, but there's no need to state, "So this Ph.D. whom he otherwise trusts is "crazy"? See, I have no use for this attitude ... if that's how he phrased it" even though you had enough sense to include that little "if" in your assertion.
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.I would like to say I finally found that Sungenis accepts that there is a fake Sr Lucy as he says here: https://youtu.be/rYAr3OJfNfM?t=600 and he is even surprised that someone who has seen the pictures doesn't see the difference.
No need for the wild conjectures about Sungenis Lad -- and at this point without some sort of solid evidence that's all they are -- conjectures which end up caricaturing Sungenis as some sort of nut himself. I don't know of anyone on this forum who has actually taken as much time and effort as Sungenis to try to analyze the FE/G debate and place his lengthy analysis on public display unless perhaps you yourself have. You may not agree with his conclusions or how he went about arriving at them, but there's no need to state, "So this Ph.D. whom he otherwise trusts is "crazy"? See, I have no use for this attitude ... if that's how he phrased it" even though you had enough sense to include that little "if" in your assertion.
The feeling is mutual, but not to worry I won't waste time pointing out YOUR bias.
I have no use for YOUR attitude.
The feeling is mutual, but not to worry I won't waste time pointing out YOUR bias.
Says the one who started going after me ... instead of the poster who made the initial comment ... when I was actually expressing incredulity over it, that Sungenis would refer to someone whom he otherwise respected as "crazy". That's obviously personal on your part ... based on your being some kind of Sungenis lackey (like Mark). Not sure what it is about that guy where he's developed a cult-like following among a few brainwashed fools. You were simply butthurt by the fact that I exposed Sungenis for his poor logic and bias. I actually believe that this slavish devotion is due to the fact that you both exchanged a few words with a guy who's somewhat famous in the Trad world (and beyond) and you now feel important due to your association with him. It reminds me of those (primarily) Black celebrities or athletes who always have a circle that follow them everywhere, glomming onto them because somehow they feel that they're participating in an extension of that individual's fame and significance.
Using the word “butthurt” and other similar names is simply inappropriate among adults.
If someone disagrees with you, just walk away. You actually get nowhere arguing back and forth on the keyboards. No need for everyone to get worked up.
PS -- butthurt refers to the reaction of a young child after getting spanked ... and generally means being overly offended or resentful, to the point of sulking over it..
.Yes, I thought it was referring to that as well. :laugh1:
You might want to be careful with that term. I've always believed it was related to sodomy. I never even thought of the explanation you give for it here until I read your post.
.
You might want to be careful with that term. I've always believed it was related to sodomy. I never even thought of the explanation you give for it here until I read your post.
The expression “butt hurt” originates from the act of spanking a child. The first iteration of the saying appeared in print in the late Nineties. The website of the Swiss surrealist painter, H. R. Giger, saw the following comment entered into its archives in 1998.
“Hollywood has tossed Giger for more talented artists, and even those artists who can emulate his style, without the tears and the hurt butts.”
Giger was most known for his work on the “Alien” film franchise. The comment references him being left out of the credits for his work on the second and third films.
“Butt-hurt” first appeared in the “Online Slang Dictionary” in January 1999. Its definition was “a small slight or friendly insult.”
...
Some people may assume “Butt hurt” has a sɛҳuąƖ connotation. It is incorrect to use the phrase to describe ... [sore rear end after sodomy].
| Catholic Restoration Conference V |
| FEATURING |
| Dr. Peter Chojnowski |
| "International Breakthroughs for Sister Lucy Truth Case. Only Question Is: Who Doesn’t Know About It Yet?" |
| October 14 through November 15 |
https://isoc.ws/ (https://isoc.ws/)This interview was great and up-to date. maybe you should post it as a topic on a new thread? It deserves the attention.
Catholic Restoration Conference V FEATURING Dr. Peter Chojnowski "International Breakthroughs for Sister Lucy Truth Case. Only Question Is: Who Doesn’t Know About It Yet?" October 14 through November 15