Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => General Discussion => Topic started by: sspxbvm on October 07, 2012, 02:36:11 PM
-
The Sede Vacantist, "Brother Michael" has a video out on his belief that Sister Lucia was replaced with an impostor sometime in the late 1950's. At first I thought it was just another conspiracy theory from one who doesn't believe we have a pope. But much of his material is very convincing.
Sister Lucia got very ill in 1943. Her Bishop told her to write the 3 rd secret out which she did in 1944. It was sealed with the direction to not open it until 1960 or her death which ever came first. After watching this video I ask myself why give such direction? Was her illness of 1943 a lingering thing that she believed might eventually take her life? If so there is no way she would have lived until 2005. In 1959 John XXIII reportedly made mention of "dealing" with the seer of Fatima. And in the mid 1950's (cant recall the date right now) Sister Lucia came out publicly to correct statements made by a priest who had interviewed her and was giving a false report. Sister Lucia said many times that the consecration of Russia must be done but later in the 1980's she supposedly says the consecration has been done and God is satisfied (umm..Okay....). She also supposedly said the 3rd secret wasn't intended for all to see which was a contradiction to what she said years earlier. My conclusion is that it is very possible that Sister Lucia died in the late 1950's and was replaced with a phony.
This phony actually took the hand of Pope John Paul II after receiving "communion"and kissed it.The video makes one's stomach sick. Taking ANY pope's hand and kissing it forcibly with our Lord on your tongue is horribly sacriligious.
This "Brother Michael" sneaks in about 30 minutes of reasons why he believes the seat of Peter is empty. Those are determinations reserved for the Holy See in some future date as stated by Archbishop Lefebvre here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RzvNrX-FTyk
However, seeing recent events between the sspx and our current heretic pope makes me wonder!!!
Some of the "evidence" in this video is very questionable but for the most part the information looks credible. Here is the video.....warning....it is long...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ENWYRPkA7Ao&playnext=1&list=PL182B115C7AF6105F&feature=results_video
The kissing of JP II's hand is in there somewhere. I had never seen nor heard of that before. Shameful.
-
Meant to put "This "phony" actually took the hand....."
-
Yes, the evidence is convincing. I have no doubts that the "Sister Lucia" from the 1960s onward was an imposter.
-
I ran across the following article:
The Two Sister Lucys
Photos and Facts
Marian T. Horvat, Ph.D.
on the Tradition in Action website: http://www.traditioninaction.org/HotTopics/g12htArt2_TwoSisterLucys.htm
I, too, had dismissed the "2 Lucys" theory... until I read Dr. Horvat's article. I found her article pretty convincing.
-
Yes, the evidence is convincing. I have no doubts that the "Sister Lucia" from the 1960s onward was an imposter.
I dont, have not seen anything convincing at all......possible, grant you, nothing convincing and we really sink our ship if we hold to this, many starting to see the light over the Third secret, likely lost if we throw in this type of thing....best to stick to the facts about the secret,etc.....
for me the Dimonds lack any credibility and Horvat and her merry men are complete twits.....TIA is a crap site, if they dont like you or a topic, they do a superficial drive by and childish reporting.....plus, they are very neoconny.....
-
Photos from different time periods, many grainy and do not include illnesses, aging,accidents, etc.....
re-read, very, very poor quality in pics and definition.
there is this gem "As one reader pointed out, the greatest difficulty of this whole problem is that Sister Lucy said one thing up until the 1960's and then changed her thinking years later. What could be the reason for this? "
um, senility? perhaps, she was misquoted and/or others purposely making up statements or putting words in her mouth....etc....
-
You can study the evidence of the Two Sister Lucys on the Tradition in
Action Site. Very convencing.
www.traditioninaction.org
-
I'd have to say I'm the fence on this issue. The question I have for the those computer literate folks, is there any evidence of tampering with these photos. I would like to get a good look at the Sister Lucys' hands as well as their necks. These two parts of the body help tell one woman from another as well as telling the age of the woman.
-
You can study the evidence of the Two Sister Lucys on the Tradition in
Action Site. Very convencing.
www.traditioninaction.org
um, yeah, I noted above I have and it is NOT convincing at all, grainy photos, vague articles.......TIA is not that great with research when they dislike something/someone and are enthuased about something/one.
See again my post, I read and re-read, if you want to beleive it, fine, but it is not convincing nor a smoking gun, closed book,etc.......there are too many questions and little hard evidence.....
Cheryl, you bring up valid points......
Too many here want to beleive in these pics and articles as it "fits", but we ahve to have some hard proof and some grany photo examining noses is not conclusive, esp as the nose in 2 shots is not that different at all and again, grainy.
Where is the proof from Mother Superior there? family? as thin as the "Siri hiding-in plain site-and suppsoedly Pope, but only decided in 1989 to tell an obscure priest, when he had access to many, many, many clerics and laity from 1958 onwards"
-
Some are missing the point. The diffferent chins and facial characteristics are important but compare the blatant contradictions about Our Lady, her secret, etc. The issue here is if new Rome planted a fake Lucia to convince the world the 3rd secret is really pretty mild and in fact a dead issue.
-
Belloc said:
Where is the proof from Mother Superior there? family? as thin as the "Siri hiding-in plain site-and suppsoedly Pope, but only decided in 1989 to tell an obscure priest, when he had access to many, many, many clerics and laity from 1958 onwards"
Can you explain this further, and the source!?
-
So many unanswered questions.
So little actual hard evidence.
I fear the really damning evidence was destroyed by new church decades ago.
However, what evidence would we realistically expect to have? Would the convent maintain medical records on Sr Lucy? Were these records destroyed long ago?
The photos of her on TIA are scant, but how many pre-Vatican II nuns had a portfolio of sundry different poses?
If Sr. Lucy received instruction and even Holy Communion from a Heaven sent angel, then did another missionary from the celestial beyond give her assurance that it was okay to receive communion in the hand?
The photos on TIA are interesting but not completely conclusive. I say interesting.
In 2000, didn't a new cardinal announce during one of those Wednesday public announcements tying JP II's assassination attempt to the third secret, with the adoring crowd cheering aloud at this - if that was the secret all along with did John XXIII say this is not for our time?
So many questions.
So many reasons to doubt new vatican.
I mean, if everyone sat around and just let it happen when the Tridentine Mass was replaced by something that is indistinguishable from the Lutheran worship service then just foisting an imposter on the world would be a pretty small task.
Sister Lucia lived her life in a convent, it's not like she was Howard Cosell or some public persona with paparazzi following her around everywhere.
Weren't all her immediate family dead by the 1960's? Who would be able to point a finger at her and declare her a phony?
-
:popcorn:
Agree with Belloc. If you look very closely at the pictures it's obvious to me at least that the two Sr. Lucia's conspiracy is lunacy. Look real close at her eyes. It's the same person. Case closed.
-
No gravitas in the demeanor or eyes of Lucy2. I find this impossible for someone who had seen actual Hell, and who knew the Third Secret of Fatima.
My other theory would be a trans-orbital lobotomy would likely produce the same effect in Lucy2. (they were common in those days and the man who invented them was Portuguese, etc.) This procedure can be done easily in 10 minutes outside of an operating room.
-
:popcorn:
Agree with Belloc. If you look very closely at the pictures it's obvious to me at least that the two Sr. Lucia's conspiracy is lunacy. Look real close at her eyes. It's the same person. Case closed.
This isn't correct. Let's have a look at the pictures:
Real Sister Lucia:
(http://www.traditioninaction.org/HotTopics/HTimages_g-k/G011_Visit.jpg)
Fake Sister Lucia:
(http://www.traditioninaction.org/HotTopics/HTimages_g-k/G011_Celina.jpg)
rowsofvoices claims the eyes are the same, but they don't look the same to me, nor do their faces.
Here's another comparison:
(http://www.traditioninaction.org/HotTopics/HTimages_g-k/G011_Valinhos.jpg)
-
@ SpiritusSanctus
Lets start with the photo of the young fake Sr. Lucia, the one which she's resting her chin on her hand. Hasn't that been admitted in the conspiracy literature that that photo was published by mistake and that a mea culpa was issued even identifying who this sister is along with her name? I seem to recall reading this somewhere.
It depends on which photos one uses to make the claim. If you look at the ones you've posted than a case might possibly be made that it's a different person. However, look at these photos I'm posting. I can't see a difference. Also you have to understand that as a person ages sometimes the facial features change a bit. As for the argument about the real versus the fake Sr. Lucia's chin, dentures might very well explain this. Maybe Sr. Lucia didn't have much of a choice about them and excepted what was given to her.
(http://www.sister-lucia.excerptsofinri.com/images/sister-lucia-01.png)
(http://www.salvemariaregina.info/SalveMariaRegina/SMR-158/1967%20Sr.%20Lucia%203.jpg)
(http://www.catholicvoice.co.uk/fatima2/images/p280d.jpg)
So in conclusion, I think it's highly deceptive of sites such as Tradition in Action to be so selective in their choice of photos. They appear to deliberately sift through all the available photos and choose the ones that best suit their agenda.
-
Lucia was practically canonized even before her death. I can't believe the church would cheap-out on her dentures that way. Maybe there was some other issue with her jaw, ect?
-
@ SpiritusSanctus
Lets start with the photo of the young fake Sr. Lucia, the one which she's resting her chin on her hand. Hasn't that been admitted in the conspiracy literature that that photo was published by mistake and that a mea culpa was issued even identifying who this sister is along with her name? I seem to recall reading this somewhere.
It depends on which photos one uses to make the claim. If you look at the ones you've posted than a case might possibly be made that it's a different person. However, look at these photos I'm posting. I can't see a difference. Also you have to understand that as a person ages sometimes the facial features change a bit. As for the argument about the real versus the fake Sr. Lucia's chin, dentures might very well explain this. Maybe Sr. Lucia didn't have much of a choice about them and excepted what was given to her.
(http://www.sister-lucia.excerptsofinri.com/images/sister-lucia-01.png)
(http://www.salvemariaregina.info/SalveMariaRegina/SMR-158/1967%20Sr.%20Lucia%203.jpg)
(http://www.catholicvoice.co.uk/fatima2/images/p280d.jpg)
So in conclusion, I think it's highly deceptive of sites such as Tradition in Action to be so selective in their choice of photos. They appear to deliberately sift through all the available photos and choose the ones that best suit their agenda.
Mmm Lucy2 looks young in those pictures. Have you considered Lucy1's teeth when looking at this picture. Clearly they're different people.
Mary said that suffering and sacrifice had to be done, and Lucy was to stay here for a while. Do you believe she would have opted for dentures, with some painful condition? I believe she would have wanted to suffer. I mean, look at little Jacinta. She SCOURGED herself!
-
parentsfortruth said:
Mmm Lucy2 looks young in those pictures. Have you considered Lucy1's teeth when looking at this picture. Clearly they're different people.
Mary said that suffering and sacrifice had to be done, and Lucy was to stay here for a while. Do you believe she would have opted for dentures, with some painful condition? I believe she would have wanted to suffer. I mean, look at little Jacinta. She SCOURGED herself!
I think it's time to put an end to this nonsense once and for all. There is no fake Sr. Lucia and nor has there ever been.
http://www.salvemariaregina.info/SalveMariaRegina/SMR-158/Third%20Secret%20Part%20V.htm
St. Lucia in 1946
(http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_kEFTmMk3e5c/S6JOLG2_bhI/AAAAAAAABxw/Zbw3k_z6HfQ/s400/Sister_Lucia_Dos_Santos.jpg)
Sr. Lucia in 1967
(http://www.salvemariaregina.info/SalveMariaRegina/SMR-158/1967%20other%20angle.jpg)
Sr. Lucia with Pope Paul VI in 1967
(http://www.jesusiam.com/pope.jpg)
Sr. Lucia in the 1990s
(http://fast1.onesite.com/community.beliefnet.com/user/dondiegodelavega/86ff71ee9fa895a2ad59e0b59b28afc6.jpg)
7) "Another distinguishing feature of Lucy as a child that can be seen in her photos up to age 40 is a protuberant muscle in the middle of her chin, pronounced enough to form a dimpled area underneath. But this muscle never appears in the photos of Sister Lucy II."
8) "Sister Lucy I's chin is strong but not salient. On the contrary, the chin of Sister Lucy II is a prominent chin. The latter has a square jaw, which does not appear in the photos of Sister Lucy I— The chin of Sister Lucy I, even though she is younger and not overweight, recedes sharply into her neck, with the tendency to disappear into a double-chin. However, the chin of Sister Lucy II, although she is older and heavier, juts forward and outward. It is so prominent that it forms a kind of platform extending out further than her nose." That it really extends further than the nose does not appear to be true of all the photos, such as that on the right.
9) "...the profile of her (Sister Lucy I's) nose... aptly fits the description of Walsh, who noted that 'the tip of her snub nose turned up.' However, the nose of Sister Lucy II is rounded at the tip, pointing slightly downward."
10) "Sister Lucy I has very long and bad teeth... It is not indisputable that Sister Lucy II is wearing dentures... No one replaces bad and ugly teeth by anther set of bad and ugly teeth... In addition, since dentures are artificial, they never change their appearance. But at times Sister Lucy II's gums seem inflamed... at other times her gums seem to retract... And if these are the natural teeth of Sister Lucy II, then they are clearly different from the natural teeth of Sister Lucy I. In that case, how can it be explained except that we are looking at two different persons?" Dr. Horvat did not include a 1967 photo, as we do below. There the 1967 photo (middle) shows nearly perfect teeth.
Now we look at scientific opinion
Now we look at scientific opinion, extracted from an article by FBI agents Michael A. Taister and Sandra D. Holliday and Forensic Odontologist H.I.M. Borman (Comments on Facial Aging in Law Enforcement Investigation, Forensic Science Communications, April 2000, Vol. 2, No. 2). We will include numbers to reference the extracts numbered above. Wrinkling of the skin is not an issue here.
"Evidence of biological aging usually appears between the ages of twenty and thirty... Lines around the mouth... become apparent, and lines from the edge of the nose to the lateral part of the mouth will progressively deepen. With the onset of these changes there may also be a hollowing of the cheek area below the... cheekbone...(2, 4, 6) Men and women of middle age may display thicker, bushier eyebrows than in their younger years... (1—the opposite is seen in the photos.)
"More general age-related trends affecting the appearance and profile of the face include the increasing prominence of the chin (8), the decreasing convexity of the skeletal nose (9), and the lengthening of the upper and lower lips (5). These trends are particularly evident from birth until age eighteen, but their effects are seen, though less dramatically, into adulthood and beyond. With increasing age, the skeletal profile of the human face begins to lose its distinctive, protuberant appearance as changes in the shape and orientation of the nasal bone lead to a flattening of the facial features (2, 3, 4, 6, 7). At the same time, however, the soft tissue facial profile trends towards greater convexity with progressive age, demonstrating that the musculature and skin of the head and face do not always follow the development of the underlying bony tissue (1, 2, 4, 7).
"When a person loses teeth... the demand for support in the bone surrounding the teeth will be decreased. This leads to a resorption of bone in those areas of disuse... The presence of less bony tissue in the upper jaw decreases the height of the face and causes the lower jaw to appear more prominent (8).
"Replacement of the natural teeth with dentures may inhibit the continued resorption of bone in the upper and lower jaws to some extent, but a change in the density if not the physical thickness of the bone tissue in the jaws will usually be apparent."
Women will tell us that eyebrows thin with advanced age (1) and that lips lose their pucker (5). So given all of the above, it seems that nearly all of the differences noted by Dr. Horvat could possibly be accounted for by aging. Although it must be admitted that the difference in the chin and jaw between 1946 and 2000 is very pronounced, this could also be accounted for by differences in posture. The earlier photos showing a receding chin may be due to the head and neck being held back, in a more youthful attempt at "good posture." If the head were also slightly bent down, the chin would also be drawn back somewhat. In the later pictures, the head and neck may be slouching forward, with the head tilted up, thus tending to jut the chin out.
The image on the right shows the cover of a book published in 1976 (Fatima in Lucia's Own Words); but the cover photo was supposed to have been taken in 1963. Here Sr. Lucia is somewhat obese and wears glasses. Her head is bent slightly down, so her chin does not jut out. Her teeth appear to be straight, but this is far from clear. It is quite possible that she was asked to lose weight and forego wearing her glasses for the public appearance in 1967. There are definitely differences between this and the 1967 photos, but they do not seem conclusive.
Sr. Lucia in 1963
(http://www.salvemariaregina.info/SalveMariaRegina/SMR-158/Sr.%20Lucia%201963%20face.jpg)
The indisputable difference is the teeth. What possible scenario can account for the dental differences, not just between the 1946 and 1967 photos, but also between both of them and the circa 2000 photos? We here examine a few:
Scenario 1: Sr. Lucia had her bad teeth fixed with major dental surgery or complete dentures before 1967. This might also explain other facial differences, like the chin and jaw. But then how do we explain the short teeth and gum problems of the later photos? Did she have her first, nice dentures replaced with bad ones? If she did not receive full dentures, but only partials or crowns, could her teeth end up looking as they do in the circa 2000 photos—evenly worn?
Scenario 2: Sr. Lucia of 1967 is the same person as 1946, but not the same as 2000. This is highly unlikely, since the 1967 Sr. Lucia is closer in appearance to the 2000 Sr. Lucia.
Scenario 3: Sr. Lucia of 1967 and of 2000 are the same person, with natural teeth, which were worn with age and affected by gum disease. But then the long, crooked teeth of Sr. Lucia of 1946 must be explained. That she had those long, crooked teeth straightened with braces and filed to make them even would explain it. But why? Would a cloistered nun really have cosmetic dental work done?
Scenario 4: They are two different sets of teeth, because they are two different people. How could the real Sister Lucia, who saw Hell, go along with the Vatican II cover-up of Our Lady's Secret?
-
She was not an imposter but we cannot believe anything she said ....
or
She was an imposter but we can believe everything she said ....
-
This proves the lies run very deep in the Vatican, and it cannot be trusted until there is disclosure about this deception, and the revolutionaries are kicked out and Vat II/novus ordo is condemned.
-
Sorry to be a party-pooper here, but to me it looks like St. Lucia had her teeth all extracted at some point and was given a set of dentures, which did little to improve a pronounced underbite or very pronounced lower jaw. Where I don't think it would have been cosmetic, I do think that nuns are human beings who may sometimes have dental isues, and even require dentures. They are kinda odd looking, however.
-
Sorry to be a party-pooper here, but to me it looks like St. Lucia had her teeth all extracted at some point and was given a set of dentures, which did little to improve a pronounced underbite or very pronounced lower jaw. Where I don't think it would have been cosmetic, I do think that nuns are human beings who may sometimes have dental isues, and even require dentures. They are kinda odd looking, however.
I guarantee the dentures weren't for cosmetic reasons. And being a cloistered nun, the extractions would only have happened if the roots had become necrotic or risk of infection, or even unusable.
If it's the same person, then dentures are the answer. But we're going off grainy photos taken from different postures. So the answer is to be found in any extant medical/dental records. The dental records would record the date of service for when the extractions occurred and it would also include the seat date of any dentures (uppers and lowers). It's possible that a local Catholic dentist would do this work free of charge. But without the records, and the more complete measurements of Sr. Lucia, we won't be able to decisively conclude this issue.
I'm still looking into whether or not full dentures would alter the smile between 1946 Sr Lucia and the 1967 Sr Lucia.
But also look to the shape of the eyes and the eyebrows and, if possible, hone in on the shape of the skull near the eyebrows.
Sr Lucia's skin seemed to become lighter as she aged.
None of this explains the theological shift.
-
Capt.
Maybe the theological shift makes sense only from the angle that it wasn't Sr. Lucia making the later statements. Its quite possible being a cloistered nun that she was totally oblivious to what was happening. She is on record I believe as stating that after the 1984 consecration was performed that it still hadn't met heavens criteria. Didn't the official Vatican newspaper print this? I understand that even Pope John Paul II publically admitted this.
I personally am satisified that there was never an imposter Sr. Lucia.
-
The imposter Lucia looks German and had a bigger body build than the real Sister Lucia. It's so obvious that they aren't the same person.
-
Yes, yes, yes! Sister Maria de Dores (Sister Lucia) was snuffed and replaced by an impostor. Tradition In Action (www.traditioninaction.com) broke the story.
The sole veritable book on Fatima is the one written by a scholar named Thomas Walsh, which book recieved the imprimature of Francis Cardinal Spellman, Archbishop of NY. The authentic Sister Lucia, in interviews with this scholar, was specific about the conversion of RUSSIA. Pope Pius XII did not convert Russia but the World. This unsatisfying conversion was done back in 1942, because at that time the Vatican was hostage to both Mussolini, and Hitler, who were at war against Russia through Operation Barbarosa. Pope Pius XII, after the war, still could not do the right "Conversion", because of the fear of Stalin, and the lack of support by the Norwegian-Jew origin President Dwigth Eisenhower. So as a consequence of this lack of support, Pope Puis XII attempted to promote the Fatima cult throughout the world in order to make possible for his successor the "Conversion of Russia by the Pope and all the bishops of the world, at a certain date, and under some special condition" (words of Sister Lucia about the real conversion). The successor of Pius XII known to the world became John XIII, who, in spite of a Catholic President of the United State (President Kennedy who was snuffed) did not do the "Conversion", but instead attempted to bring peace and harmony by the Counsil of Vatican II. John XXIII betrayed Heaven at this moment. This betrayal by John XXIII was similar to the betrayal of Judas of Escariot, as explained in a brilliant lecture given by Malachi Martin (title of the said lecture: the Judas' Syndrome). Pope John XXIII confirmed his betrayal to the Mother of God on January 1960, when he refused to divulge the Third Secret of Fatima (incidentally Father Malachi Martin SJ had read the Third Secret, and he likely was snuffed in his New York apartment. Father Martin was more that a novelist. He had been a part of the staff in the Vatican at the begining of V2, and also he had been present during a conclave. He knew a lot).
There is an important mystery surrounding Fatima, and it is the prophecy made by little Jacinta Marto, the youngest of the three seers. She describes "the Holy Father being in a big house facing an angry crowd". I personally think that this prophecy was to describe the alledged Pope Gregory XVII (Cardinal Siri) who had been forced to abdicate within the hour of his election as Pope (October 26, 1958, 6pm Rome time). The Blessed Child could not see that the "big house" was the Sistine Chapel because during each conclave, the frescos are drapped. The election, and simultaneous abdication of Cardinal Siri was the "short reign" of the Pope prophesized in 1846 by Our Lady of La Salette. The prophecies of both Our Lady of La Salette and Blessed Jacinta are therefore a prophecy fulfilled.
One more thing about the said above prophecy of Blessed Jacinta: It has been covered by a lie said by both Cardinals Ratzinger and Bertone when both said that the prophecy of Blessed Jacinta had been fulfilled during the alledged assasination attempt made against John Paul II by the alledged hit-man Ali Agca on St. Peter's Square. In my opinion this alledged assassination attempt was a set-up. Ali Agca was a patsy who was provided with a loud and inacurate Government Colt ACP, which perhaps blank shots and the Pope who had flasks of blood under his white cassock. John Paul II, who had been an actor before becoming a poison gas salesman before the war, and finally a man of the cloth (source Chiesa Viva on the background of this Pope), simply faked being shot-at. It was staged, I think. The sudden death of Cardinal Vizinsky, Primate of Poland who could have seen the staging raises the suspicions. The whole world saw next to nothing to a likely staged assassination attempt. It was done so this Pope could gain world-wide credibility and sympathy in order for him and his entourage to continue the malevolent work of his pontificate, and to silent all opositions to the one hundred plus heresis that were imposed upon the Catholic Church. Our present Pope Benedict XVI, who appears to be an accomplice to this exposed conspiracy, since he must have lied about the Third Secret of Fatima (an alledged copy of the original docuмent containing the secret is posted on Tradition In Action) is certainly aware of this conspiracy theory that I just exposed. We must continue to pray for the Holy Father, because he is in trouble, as well as ... we are all in trouble...
To those line, Spiritus Sanctus might exclaim :"Balloney!". I wholeheartedly hope that he is right on this one,
-
For me the most jarring difference is the disposition between the two and the shape of the face.
-
Anybody who believes that these two women are one and the same is kidding themselves. The facial structure is completely different, to an extent that cannot be accounted for by aging or by dental extractions. I've studied physical anthropology informally but in some depth. The TIA analysis actually fails to cover many of the other discrepancies found between the two women.
For example, take the pictures below.
(http://www.tldm.org/news7/SisterLucyProfiles.jpg)
The real sister Lucia has a prognathic profile, what is known in maxillofacial circles as bimaxillary protrusion. This means that her dental/mouth area protrudes outwards from the rest of her facial structure. She also exhibits retrognathia, or a recessive chin and mandible.
The replacement sister Lucia exhibits the opposite condition - maxillary (upper jaw/upper lip) retrusion combined with mandibular protrusion. Notice how her upper lip and philtrum are recessed in relation to her markedly strong chin and mandible, while with the real sister Lucia, the upper lip/philtrum area protrudes forwards perhaps a centimeter or so beyond her mandible. This is a substantial physical discrepancy and is proof that these two women possess completely divergent skeletal characteristics. Such a discrepancy CANNOT be explained either by dental extractions, the placement of dentures, aging, or blurry photographs.
It is impossible for these two people to be one and the same. That's a fact.
-
There is
1) NO WAY that those are the same person. I have worked in security and investigations for the better part of the last twenty years. I have given and taken as a matter of record many physical descriptions of individuals from witnesses to crimes and other incidents. I would never describe Sr. Lucia as possessing the facial characteristics of the old lady in the modern photos.
2) a history within Newchurch of duplicity, obfuscation of facts and blatant criminality.
Why, then, should/would it shock anyone to learn that the same people who have orchestrated the demise of the Faith would stoop to foisting an impostor upon the faithful in order to downplay and obscure the import and content of the Third Secret, which clearly must echo the words of Our Lady at La Salette concerning the collapse of the clergy at Rome?
Our Lady of Fatima, pray for us.
Most Sacred Heart of Jesus, have mercy on us.
-
I have a photo of my maternal Grandmother at age 10 and age 90.
I can tell she is the same identical person.
A person's facial features do not change as they age, unless
they had an operation to change their facial features.