Yes, the news presenter is quoting Carlos Evaristo's quote attributed to Sr. Lúcia... We always return to the starting point! This journalist José Alberto Carvalho is actually a good example to help deconstructing the conspiracy theory, he is from Viseu and does not have a local accent...
Lying is perhaps too strong a word, but some subjective interpretation of certain statements that are less present in memory or perceived in another sense seems more appropriate to me. The issue of the accent, which I had also read somewhere, doesn't convince me either, it seems more like the accent of an elderly person, if you can say that, and a video with poor sound quality. Coimbra and Viseu are less than an hour away, there are no major differences in accent, although in the Viseu region, many people pronounce the "s" sound in an imperfect way, with an almost "g" sound... What I hear in the video does not seem conclusive to me. If she actually had an accent so different from the original, then her huge family would quickly discover the supposed replacement of one of their beloved members. I turned 49 in April and no one identifies me with the accent of my home region or the region where I currently live...
We live with many people throughout our lives and the accent gets lost or changes over time. If you heard my uncles who emigrated to Brazil talk, you would say they were Brazilian. And even at this distance and when communications were more difficult and much less frequent, the family here in Portugal would somehow notice if one of the beloved brothers in Brazil had been replaced by an impostor. I don't have the slightest doubt about that.
We are lucky to have on the forum a native Portuguese speaker with extensive knowledge of Fatima- and with excellent English writing skills! Im sure your input is much appreciated.
Yes Blizzard, it is very strange that Sr. Lucy's name should end up in a list of deceased nuns of the Carmelite order with the date of 1949. However, it is not believable for another reason apart from the 1957 interview with Fr. Fuentes: The screenshot that Roy is showing, entitled 'Moniales Defunctae' is of a single webpage from a list of webpages ordered by date. The date of the current webpage is shown in red under the title - 'anni 2005'. 'Sr. Lucy' died on 13th Feb 2005. If you look at the date of death for the records on the weppage you can see that they are ordered by date. However, all the other records are within the year 2005 and in the correct order. Record 264 has date of death ('Def') = 04/02/2005. Record 266 has date of death = 15/02/2005. Sandwiched in between is 265. Maria Lucia dos Santos with date of death showing 31/05/1949. However, the date that 'Sr. Lucy' died is 13/02/2005 which corresponds to the correct order on the webpage. So what is going on? In my mind there are 2 possibilities. Either 1. The webpage (static copy) has been altered (deceitfully) using developer tools - changing the date of record 265 from 13/02/2005 to 31/05/1949 Or 2. There is an error in populating one of the rows in underlying datbase from which the webpages are being generated. For this to work, the order of the records on the webpages would have to be determined by a different database field than the one which is generating the actual date of death (Def) on the webpage. There would also have to be redundancy in the DB information with two separate fields holding date of death information - one of them determining the order of the records on the webpage but not being displayed, the other containing an erroneous date and being displayed. Option 2 seems less likely by far. There is one further interesting fact that deserves mentioning. The date of death shown for Maria Lucia (265) is actually the date of her second profession of vows as a Carmelite in Coimbra! The date of profession given is the date of her first profession as a Dorothean Sister. It seems unlikely that this could just be a coincidence. So this might lend support to the explanation no. 2 above. What I mean is that there could be a field which is meant to record miscellaneous info like this but this info was erroneously populated in the date of death field (the one which is not determining the order of records on the webpage). In conclusion however, I would surmise that a copy of the webpage was tampered with and then screenshotted. But I cannot discount a genuine error due to the coincidence of the date of death being the date of her second profession of vows. Apologies for the rather technical analysis.
Wow thanks for the very thorough analysis. I can’t believe I missed the obvious fact that all other entries on that page refer to the year 2005. I suppose the webpage was altered. The question is by whom and to what purpose? It doesn’t seem likely that it was a simple error. If the intention was to deceitfully add support to the idea that Sister Lucy died in the late 1950s/early 1960s they wouldn’t have written 1949 as the year of her death. Father Fuentes was a credible witness and the tone and content of that 1957 interview was clearly Sister Lucy’s. Do you know if this list of deceased nuns was ever submitted to the man who created the Sister Lucy website and what his take is on all this?
For supporters of the 2 Lucias theory, there is a new development that may interest you. According to the well-known Catholic journalist and Mexican author José Alberto Villasana, there are at least 3 Lucias, 1 real and 2 impostors. We really must be living in the post-truth era...
I agree completely with the evidence...besides from common sense...my mom and I both were so curious how someone would do a 180 like that. That was a long time ago but I still feel even more sure because it explains so much. I'm not worried because the truth, whatever that may be, will be given soon. Families can be threatened...it happens everyday.
Thanks Blizzard. Actually I don't know if Dr. Chojnowski has ever been made aware of this. Having thought about it some more I think I know what is going on and I have changed my mind and think it is a genuine error. Apologies for the technicalities again but I do think it is necessary in order to understand the reasons behind my conclusion. I have worked with both databases and web technologies and I think one cannot understand the issue withour some description of the technology. When viewing any webpage using a browser 'what you see is [not actually] what you get'! There is a heap of code beneath the weppage which the browser uses to display it. But if one uses the Chrome web browser, it is very easy to see what that code is because by 'inspecting' the webpage it generates a copy of the code for you. In fact one can then easily alter the code (html etc.) or the content of the copy (but not the original) and see how your changes look. It is a tool for learning web coding. So using this tool it is very easy to change the 'date of death' for Sr. Lucy on the copy and then take a screen shot. However, if one refreshes the web page the changes to the copy disappear and the original is reloaded and copied again. Hence the need to take a screenshot if one wishes to deceive one into thinking that the original has the altered 'date of death'. You point out that if they wished to deceive one into thinking Sr. Lucy died in the late 1950s they wouldn't have entered 1949 for her death - that is true unless of course they were unaware of the 1957 interview and any other public writings (perhaps unlikely) and did indeed wish to give the impression she died in 1949. But the tampering hypothesis is the simplest explanation. Why is it the simplest explanation? Because it avoids having to explain why Sr. Lucy's record is displayed alongside all the 2005 records and not way further back in the list of webpages along with any other 1949 records. And it explains the exact positioning of the record according to the ordering by 'date of death' of the original record (not the altered one which is only a copy). However, I now believe that there was no deceitful tampering such as this. The clue that reveals why the simplest explanation is not always the correct one is the actual date of death. Yes the date is too early perhaps but this evidence is weaker than the fact that the date itself is highly significant. It is the date of Sr. Lucy's second profession of vows. The chance of randomly setting the date of death to the date of her second profession is 1 / 365 or 0.0027 percent. Let me explain further. If we reject the simple tampering hypothesis, we have to explain why Sr. Lucy's record is still found in with all the 2005 records because there is no doubt that the records are being ordered by date (as I said earlier) and specifically by 'date of death'. This might seem impossible, but to explain it I need to describe the technology further. As I said, webpages on the browser have a whole heap of underlying code. This is often called the front-end. In addition they often have a database on a remote server. This is often called the back-end or server-side. Sometimes they even have a middle tier with its own code. Often, however, the programmers or developers who code the back end are different to those who code the front-end or browser code. And this is where genuine errors can creep in. According to standard practices, the information on the Carmelite nuns will have been stored in the back-end database, extracted using back-end code, sent to the browser across the internet, to be displayed on the browser webpage using the front-end code. Typically, the information would be extracted by code such as this: SELECT name, date_of_birth, date_of_profession, date_of_death FROM CarmeliteNuns ORDER BY date_of_death The output will be something like Name1 date1 date2 date3 Name2 date4 date5 date6 Etc. However, code like this would result in Sr. Lucy's record being displayed along with all the 1949 records not the 2005 records. But what if there are 2 fields in the database to store date of profession, just in case, like in the case of Sr. Lucy, the nun came to the Carmelites from another order. SELECT name, date_of_birth, date_of_profession1, date_of_profession2 date_of_death FROM CarmeliteNuns ORDER BY date_of_death However the vast majority of nuns have only one date_of_profession because they came directly into the Carmelites. The other date is always set to a database value called NULL (i.e. empty) So the output looks like Name1 date1 date2 NULL date3 Name1 date4 date5 NULL date6 ... Name3 date7 date8 date9 date10 Where Name3 is the rare exception that has 2 dates of profession. Now imagine that the front-end coder makes a mistake because they are unaware that there are rare exceptions where there are two dates of profession. He or she erroneously skips null values and thinks that only the first three defined values are to be displayed. So date10 never gets processed and the date_of_profession2 gets displayed on the webpage instead of the date_of_death. Perhaps it is legacy code and they are unaware that null values are being skipped or of the significance of null values in the back-end database. This explains the anomaly due to an error caused by separation of front and back-end coding, and still preserves the ordering by date_of_death which is not displayed. So in conclusion I do think this is a genuine error. Perhaps it is not an error that coders should fall into but nevertheless can happen. However, it does not alter my view that the two Sr. Lucys theory is entirely possible and indeed plausible. I have some further observations but have not time yet to elaborate on them.
This is an excellent video Basto thanks for posting. I don’t think the argument for there being 3 Sister Lucys is strong enough as it seems to be based solely on that obituary entry, which could be an error as Inveritatem points out above. I would stick to the 2 Lucys theory but this man Villasana, whom I didn’t know, is very very knowledgeable and articulate and the interviewer poses good intelligent questions. Unfortunately the video is in Spanish and I don’t think English subtitles are available. But I’ll try to post a brief summary of the main points he makes sometime later today or tomorrow, together with a response to in veritatems post above. Again, nobody is trying to convince anyone here. Truth, as always, is all that matters.
You can enable automatic translation on YouTube. I don't know a single person in Portugal who believes in the theory of the 2 Lucias, which is intriguing... It should be the closest people, in particular family, friends and colleagues at the convent, who notice the difference between the real one and the impostor. . Unless we consider the hypothesis that dozens of people close to Lúcia agreed to be part of this conspiracy, which seems even more absurd to me. Anyway, a few months ago I came across a famous criminal investigative journalist, Hernâni Carvalho, who, for some reason, was sitting on the terrace of a cafe here in the city close to where I live. I approached him, greeted him and suggested that he investigate this case, referring him to the website "Sister Lucy Truth" as a starting point. He thanked me for the suggestion and I continued on my way. This journalist has a regular presence on television, but to date this issue has not been addressed. It would be good if someone like him could definitively resolve this issue which, as I already mentioned, is not a topic in Portugal. But only from Portugal, the issue could be definitively resolved, with contacts and eventually some forensic expertise. Until that happens, what we see is experts in USA comparing poor quality photographs obtained with technology from the first half of the 20th century. Maybe I'll send an email to the editorial team of some media outlet suggesting investigative journalistic work to put an end to these conspiracy theories once and for all.
Again, thanks for the detailed explanation. It sure makes a lot of sense. And I would love to hear your further observations. Here’s what I consider the gist of what Mr Villasana says in the fascinating video above. I personally don’t think there is enough evidence for the existence of imposter #1 but what do I know. Truth is stranger than fiction. Anyway, here’s Villasanas take: The entry in that obituary is not an error. The real Sister Lucy died indeed in 1949; The Vatican by then had been heavily infiltrated by Freemasons and communists. Pius 12 was a friend of Fatima and a good holy pontiff but even then he faced tremendous opposition from those who wanted to steer the church in a modernistic direction; When Sister Lucy died the modernists saw that as a danger to their agenda which, among other things, wanted to bury the message of Fatima, prevent the disclosure of the third secret and the consecration of Russia. Sister Lucy had made it clear that the secret should be revealed either in 1960 or when she died, whichever came first; Cardinal Montini (future pope Paul 6) then decided to arrange for an imposter to take Lucy’s place so as to prevent the world from knowing of her death. This, according to Villasana, was imposter #1; Montini was a Freemason and pro communism, as was Pope John 23; Imposter #1 should remain cloistered and silent; However, when she decided to give that famous interview to Father Fuentes Montini and the modernists again went into panic mode and decided that she should go. They tried to discredit Father Fuentes and said that he had made up the entire interview; What happened to imposter #1 is unknown but there followed a 10-year period in which Sister Lucy completely disappeared from public view until they found another replacement, imposter #2, who publicly appeared with Pope Paul 6 in Fatima in 1967; Imposter #2 died in 2005. She was used by the Vatican throughout this period to endorse the official Vatican position regarding Fatima, the third secret and the consecration of Russia. She enthusiastically endorsed the absurd interpretation of the third secret given in the year 2000 by Ratzinger and Sodano. She said the consecration of Russia had indeed been accepted by heaven and that the message of Fatima was essentially over; Ratzinger later said that Sodano had “twisted his arm”. He later also that the message of Fatima in fact was not over; Villasana believes that Pope John Paul 2 was not aware of the fact that the woman he met in Fatima in 1981 was an imposter.
I found this interesting. It’s from the sisterlucytruth site: So the idea that people can always accurately identify their immediate family members is completely false. And this is for people who had extensive amounts of time with the imposter and could get a good look at him. But a nun is even harder to identify because the habit covers most of the head except for barely the face, and they can only speak through a grill, making it that much harder to identify who she is. Usually, people in these sorts of cases believe what they would rather believe. They normally would rather believe their child/spouse/sibling is alive. So, what would Sr. Lucy’s family rather think — that she had been garroted in her convent one night in the late 50s, dismembered and fed to hogs, and was now being impersonated by a fraud, or that she was living a peaceful life in a convent and got to be seen on TV with the pope once a while? Obviously the second scenario is preferable to believe, so that’s what they would be more likely to believe. Secondly, the idea that they would have denounced the fraud if they had detected it is just as problematic. Suppose some member of Sr. Lucy’s family went to see her and knew immediately that this person was an imposter. Or saw a picture of the faker and knew she was not her. What are they going to do, start a website? in the 1970s? Suppose they did an interview with a reporter, telling their suspicions. What reporter would touch that story? And even if they could convince some reporter to do the story, what would they have to gain from it? They would be branded as a crazy conspiracy theorist, lose their reputation and probably all their friends, who would reject them for accusing the hierarchy of the Church of murder and imposture. The rest of the family would ostracize them, and probably nobody would believe them anyway. Almost nobody is going to put themselves through such a thing, especially with nothing to gain. So no, even if members of Sr. Lucy’s family did/do know about the fraud, almost certainly none of them are going to talk publicly. https://sisterlucytruth.org/slt-news/
I have no opinion on whether there was a fake Lucia or not as to me that is not as important as the message of Fatima. Nor have I really looked into the research. However I wil say 51 former intelligence officers will not publicly say they were wrong about “the laptop” yet it was used in a court of law. The world is so crazy I wouldn’t put anything past anyone anymore.
Just remember Pope John Paul the first. No autopsy allowed. Pope for 1 month. There was a group, same group I'm sure, taking care of that problem. Our Blessed Mother has warned us about this group....why do things seem impossible? What won't they do?? Yes anything is possible.
Malachi Martin mentioned on several occasions that Sister Lucy was misquoted, fake letters were written in her name and she was replaced by an imposter. And he said that in the 1990s before the internet and all the photographic evidence was available. He also mentioned that a group similar to the St Gallen mafia was active from as early as the 1950s! This group, among other things, was enormously influential and worked ceaselessly to suppress Fatima. And of course to suppress Fatima they had to suppress the only living witness and main messenger of Fatima. Anthony Stine has an excellent video on that.
