In this video (subtitles in English available) at mark 1:28:38 Professor Bezeera comments:
"We also found out that Lucia was left handed, why do we know this?  There is an image of her from 1946 when she goes to the Well of the Apparitions to drink water, and there she uses her left hand."

There is another video of Professor Bezeera's, where he talks about a video of the imposter at the same well, and she uses her right hand to drink.  If I can find it, I will post it.

In this video the real Sr. Lucia drinks with her left hand (mark 1:23)


In this video the imposter visits the well (12:42)
And at mark 12:56 she drinks with her right hand

RARE video I presume...Thanks for posting Persto.
Plus, she kindda forgot her name...?! but to be fair, her religious name is probably different from her legal name...
33 seconds mark, compare the smile with attached link >photo:
https://www.pinterest.com/pin/754001162593364941/

Voter Sr Lucy smiles downward...

 

https://x.com/SisterLucyTruth

Sister Lucy Truth
@SisterLucyTruth
Apr 26, 2024

Notice the fake Lucia votes with her right hand. The real Sister Lucy was LEFT handed.
40 second video clip:
https://x.com/i/status/1783846389845573827

.

This is a very interesting detail because only around 10% of the population is left-handed. So, if the real Sr. Lucy was left-handed, it would be very difficult to find someone who looked enough like her, and also knew enough about her, who would also be left-handed.

Also, it would be extremely difficult for most people to fake which handedness they are, as it would require constant attention to every gesture and movement, almost. And most people can't write at all with their other hand.

And your handedness doesn't change during your life; it's pretty well permanent.

This is a very good catch.

They certainly didn't foresee a future in which this information could be widely disseminated on devices that didn't even exist yet, over a network of information that didn't exist either, and have any number of people connecting the dots.  They also may not have foreseen a Church in such dysfunction, that people would ask the awkward questions and not be afraid to do so, rather than thinking "we cannot dare question anything that priests and bishops tell us is true".

.

I think this is why they did it, actually. If they had foreseen the advent of computers and the internet and the other tools that have been used to debunk this hoax, I don't think they would have attempted it.

I don't think the new church would try something like that today.

I would really, really like to hear some apologists of the "the Church would never tell us anything that is wrong" ilk (think Where Peter Is and similar) try to debunk all of this clear evidence, and explain why all of those who propose it are mistaken.  If nothing else, WPI types would say something like "Pope St John Paul the Great accepted her, and that's the end of the discussion".

There is no way those two women are the same person.  My big question is, if the "real" Sister Lucia died naturally, why not just say so?

https://radtradthomist.chojnowski.me/2018/03/keep-reaching-mel-had-sister-lucy-died.html

"...
 Ultimostiempos.org (Last Times.org) said that the real Lucy died in 1949.  They don't say whether she died of natural causes or otherwise (at least, when I rapidly scanned the article, I didn't find any such assertion).

.

That strange article about the entry for Sr. Lucy in the necrology of her convent has come up before on this site, and I think it's an interesting idea but I don't find it totally convincing. I dug up another post I put up about it here. Basically, there are other anomalies in that necrology that imply we might not be understanding the information on it correctly.

I think it's generally accepted that there are only two Sr. Lucys -- one real one and only one person who ever publicly impersonated her. I also think the idea that the imposter was faking it during the lifetime of the real one, with the consent of the real one, is completely ridiculous.

.
I think it's generally accepted that there are only two Sr. Lucys -- one real one and only one person who ever publicly impersonated her.

.

Actually, I believe this was proved with facial recognition software by Chojnowski.

The problem I have with the necrology entry, now that the details are starting to come back to me, has to do with the fact that it's not totally clear to me what is being represented in that page. It appears to be a list of all the nuns in the order who died in 2004/5.

Here is the image we're talking about. It's apparently a screenshot of the website of the convent Sr. Lucy belonged to. She is listed in the necrology down in the lower right corner as entry #265. Her "def" day (which I think means death day) is listed instead as 1949, although this was changed after someone noticed it and put an article on the internet about it, but not before someone saved a screenshot of the page.

I definitely think there is something very fishy about it, but I'm not totally convinced because there is another entry that is also weird. It's #232 in the upper left corner, who is listed as having died in 1962. So if they're just entering names one at a time as the nuns die, then why is a nun who died in 1962 listed in the middle of people who died in 2004? Also, if we take that list at face value, it means only one nun died in 2002, NOBODY died in 2003, and then 21 nuns died in 2004. Then, another 21 nuns died just in the first two months of 2005 before the list cuts off, the same number as those who died in the entire previous year. I mean, I know the pre-Vatican 2 nuns were starting to die off by then, but that really strains credulity. I think there is more to that list than meets the eye, and I think we just don't know what exactly is being recorded there.

I don't understand the failure to apply the proper distinctions, where the question of what "the Church" tells us being protected by the Holy Ghost only extends to Magisterium, and not the personal behavior of prelates.  If Wojtyla had been a legitimate Pope, he could lie until the cows come home, be a pathological liar, but that would have nothing to do with whether or not his TEACHING as Pope were protected.

It is an exaggerated piety, due in no small part to their notion that the post-Vatican II popes could do no wrong.  It is possible (though it is a bit of a stretch) that JPII was duped, and had no clear idea of what Sister Lucia looked like, but, yes, even if he had deliberately lied or dissembled, it would not affect the Deposit of Faith.  We are under no obligation either to believe or to disbelieve the various claims about Sister Lucia, though denying the clear evidence of one's eyes is a challenge to reality.