As a referential basis for this report, I used photographs of Sister Lucia dos Santos, the seer of Fatima, from the periods related to her childhood until her entry into the Carmel of Coimbra, a period ranging approximately from 1917 to 1950. I have classified, given the similarity between the photographs, as the same individual that I will refer to in this report as Individual 1. I also analyzed the photographs of the individual presented as Sister Lucia, seer of Fatima, from 1967 until her death in 2005 and, given the similarity between the photographs, I classified this as the same individual that I will refer to in this report as individual 2.
Besides the photographs that, due to the two-dimensional limitation, I considered insufficient for the conclusive analysis I intended to reach, I modeled with plasticine clay two three-dimensional figures of Individuals 1 and 2, besides having made a series of drawings of the two individuals from several angles, and the results of my observations were as follows:

Facial structure of Individual 1:
Individual 1, due to the photographs of her face taken during her period as a Dorothean Sister being partially hidden by the religious habit, but with the whole set of information obtained through the analysis of the aforementioned modeling, can be classified as having a dolichofacial biotype, due to the vertical growth of the bone structure, i.e., there is a predominance of height over width, making the overall format more lengthy, oval and narrow. In addition, Individual 1 does not have a marked or accentuated jaw, thus the muscles of the jaw are thinner and have a tendency to retrusion, the direction of growth is downward and backward, predominantly vertical development.
Regarding the forehead: The supraciliary arch of Individual 1 has a smoother and rounder structure, which facilitates a more perfect design of the eyebrows, bringing them closer to the nasal bone. Also, the zygomatic bone of Individual 1 is characterized by being prominent and balanced to the supraciliary arch. The characteristics described above make individual 1’s face, when viewed in profile, a convex face.
Regarding the chin: The mandibular bone of Individual 1 shows characteristics of retrognathia, not characterizing a short but a receded chin, that is, retrognathia is more visible in the individual in profile than in front (Therefore, the frontal photographs of Individual 1 are not so conclusive in this respect).
Regarding the jaw: Individual 1 has a bimaxillary protrusion, i.e., the teeth of the upper arch or maxilla are protruding forward, forming a pointed profile, with difficulty in keeping the lips closed. This characteristic in individual 1 seems to be caused by a disproportion between the size of the teeth and the upper dental arch.

Facial structure of Individual 2:
Individual 2, undoubtedly, can be classified as a Brachyfacial type face which is just the opposite of the Dolichofacial type, since it is a face format characterized by horizontal growth. This type of structure is characterized by a shorter and squarer face, besides presenting a more prominent and stronger mandibular contour.

Regarding the forehead:
The supraciliary arch of Individual 2 presents frontal protuberance which is a feature acquired in childhood or congenital. The hand-structure analysis of Individual 2 discards the possibility of this characteristic being related to Acromegaly, which is caused by growth hormone (GH) in larger quantities, resulting in hands, feet, and facial bones that are longer and wider than normal. This characteristic in Individual 2 makes the space between the eyebrows larger and produces a less continuous wrinkling of the forehead due to the forward projection of the forehead.

Regarding the chin: The mandibular bone of Individual 2 presents prognathism, which makes the chin more prominent, corpulent and voluminous. This characteristic makes the lower lip of individual 2 larger (not thicker) and more protruding forward. This is very different from what was seen in Individual 1, and this difference cannot be explained in any way, neither by the aging process, nor by the use of a dental prosthesis.

Due to the aforementioned characteristics, Individual 2 has a concave-shaped profile, with more prominent forehead and chin in relation to the face.

Conclusion:
I state beyond doubt from the analyses done from the 3D images of individuals 1 and 2 that they are not the same person, because there are insuperable differences throughout the bone structure of the faces, which cannot be explained in any other way.
Carlos Bezerra.